Below is a post from the VOR FaceBook page, 6/27/18, commenting on Justice Kennedy's resignation from the Supreme Court and his importance as a moderating influence on the 1999 Olmstead decision.
Many federally funded advocacy groups and agencies have misinterpreted Olmstead as a mandate for "Community Integration for Everyone" . In Olmstead, the Supreme Court did not prohibit institutional care for those who need it or attempt to define or delineate the types of settings that are permitted or prohibited under the Americans with Disabilities Act. To the contrary, Olmstead recognized the need for States to maintain a range of facilities for the diverse needs of persons with developmental disabilities: "Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. But we recognize, as well, the States' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand." Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 597 (emphasis added)
**************
VOR comment on the resignation of Justice Kennedy:
With Justice Kennedy's resignation as a Supreme Court justice, I wanted to post part of the Olmstead Decision ruling, that also quotes part of the Amicus brief that VOR filed at that time. The Olmstead Ruling ensures choice for our individuals to live in the least restrictive environment for their needs. It does NOT mean everyone has to live in a community setting.
With Justice Kennedy's resignation as a Supreme Court justice, I wanted to post part of the Olmstead Decision ruling, that also quotes part of the Amicus brief that VOR filed at that time. The Olmstead Ruling ensures choice for our individuals to live in the least restrictive environment for their needs. It does NOT mean everyone has to live in a community setting.
Here is part of the ruling, and something we need to continue to share with legislators, some who still do not know and understand the real meaning of Olmstead.
"However, a majority of Justices in Olmstead also recognized an ongoing role for publicly and privately operated institutions: 'We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings...Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.'" Id. at 601-602.
A plurality of Justices noted: “[N]o placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate . . . ‘Some individuals, whether mentally retarded or mentally ill, are not prepared at particular times - perhaps in the short run, perhaps in the long run - for the risks and exposure of the less protective environment of community settings ’ for these persons, ‘institutional settings are needed and must remain available’” (quoting Amicus Curiae Brief for the American Psychiatric Association, et al, [including VOR]). “As already observed [by the majority], the ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions, placing patients in need of close care at risk... ‘Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person—recognizing on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be an institution’[quoting VOR’s Amici Curiae brief].” Id. at 605.
Justice Kennedy noted in his concurring opinion, “It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that states had some incentive, for fear of litigation to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision.” Id. at 610."
**************
A plurality of Justices noted: “[N]o placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate . . . ‘Some individuals, whether mentally retarded or mentally ill, are not prepared at particular times - perhaps in the short run, perhaps in the long run - for the risks and exposure of the less protective environment of community settings ’ for these persons, ‘institutional settings are needed and must remain available’” (quoting Amicus Curiae Brief for the American Psychiatric Association, et al, [including VOR]). “As already observed [by the majority], the ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions, placing patients in need of close care at risk... ‘Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person—recognizing on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be an institution’[quoting VOR’s Amici Curiae brief].” Id. at 605.
Justice Kennedy noted in his concurring opinion, “It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that states had some incentive, for fear of litigation to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision.” Id. at 610."
**************
See also, VOR Olmstead Resources.
VOR comments on the 17th (2016) anniversary of Olmstead:
"Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Administration for Community Living (ACL) issued press releases celebrating the 17th Anniversary of the Olmstead decision. VOR shares their view that there is much to celebrate in opening doors to community living for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) who are able and wish to take advantage of such opportunities. Unfortunately, their ideological preoccupation with one key part of Olmstead, community integration, at the expense of the other key part, choice, has reduced options for all people with I/DD. This crimped and, VOR would submit, inaccurate application of the plain language of Olmstead has done significant harm to many of our most disabled citizens.
"By insisting that all people with I/DD live and work in the community, the DOJ and ACL are treating people with I/DD as a monolithic group, not as the individuals they are. DOJ and ACL are substituting the wishes of the government for that of the person with I/DD or, where relevant, the legal guardian. While their policies have opened doors for the less severely disabled, they have closed important doors for the more severely disabled. Many of these individuals have lifelong needs that require a very high level of care, the kind often found only in public and private Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICFs/IID), sheltered workshops, and facility-based day programs."
