Texas disability advocacy organizations caution that a recent opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice might result in increased institutionalization for individuals with disabilities. Over 25 groups have issued a joint appeal urging lawmakers to safeguard disability rights against the possible repercussions of the DOJ’s ruling.
Abigail Ruhma KERA
Numerous Texas-based disability rights and advocacy groups express concern that a recent opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Justice could potentially revive institutionalization practices for people with disabilities.
In mid-June, the DOJ issued an opinion stating that two key disability rights laws — the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — do not require states to follow an “integration mandate.” Advocates argue this reinterpretation “undermines” the rights of people with disabilities.
Jenny Stonemeier, CEO of REACH, a nonprofit running several independent living centers in North Texas, warned, “The risk is re-institutionalization. It’s segregation of people with disabilities.”
Supporters like Stonemeier stress that integration mandates are grounded in the belief that individuals with disabilities deserve access to live, work, and engage within their communities.
More than 25 Texas entities, including REACH, have endorsed a collective statement urging government officials and stakeholders to maintain laws, funding, and practices that protect the rights of people with disabilities to determine their own living arrangements.
The DOJ opinion doesn’t change law – but advocates remain “alarmed”
Disability Rights Texas, the state’s official protection and advocacy organization for persons with disabilities, released a public statement strongly opposing the DOJ’s opinion. They clarified that the opinion does not overturn existing court rulings nor absolve states from their duty to provide disability services.
“However, there are emerging risks related to the integration mandate and protection against unnecessary institutionalization,” the organization noted. “Since this memo aims to represent the federal government’s legal stance, it might influence how agencies such as the Department of Justice handle complaints, enforce disability laws, and supervise state service programs.”
The group also cautioned that the opinion might unravel previous settlements or be cited in future cases to restrict community integration rights.
Stonemeier expressed concern that the DOJ devoted effort to publishing a document “suggesting that states may not be obligated to comply with the law.”
“It could be signaling future developments,” she added. “That uncertainty is troubling.”
Individuals with disabilities fear losing their “hard-fought” autonomy
Abby Maddox, a 26-year-old advocate with Down Syndrome living in North Richland Hills with a roommate and working at a UPS retail location, cherishes the independence she has gained through community-based services.
“If those programs disappeared, I’d have to leave my apartment,” Maddox shared. “I might have to move back with my parents or enter an institution. It depends on my family’s wishes.”
She highlighted that programs like Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and workforce support programs represent her freedom.
“Being independent means that people with disabilities can prove we are capable of living on our own and pursuing our dreams,” she said.
Maddox, who also serves on the Texas Council of Developmental Disabilities, said losing her independence would deeply affect her mental health.
Her family, especially her mother Laurie Maddox, explained it took significant effort to navigate systems that support Abby’s needs related to employment, transportation, and personal care.
“It would be heartbreaking,” Laurie Maddox said. “Taking away choices to only one option isn’t really a choice. You have to do what you’re told to do. I don’t want that for my daughter or anyone else with a similar disability.”
The support Abby Maddox and many others depend on comes from protections embedded in Section 504 and the ADA, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal 1999 Olmstead decision, which ruled that “unjustified segregation” of people with disabilities constitutes unlawful discrimination under the ADA.
The ruling requires states to offer community-based services when appropriate and when individuals wish to stay integrated in their communities, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Consequently, the DOJ and HHS established “integration mandates” that emphasize providing services in the “most integrated setting appropriate” for the individual with a disability.
Stonemeier emphasized that these integration mandates represent a “hard-won” right allowing people with disabilities to choose their living situations.
However, the recent DOJ opinion, coinciding with the Olmstead decision anniversary, stated that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not reaffirm these mandates.
“This affects real lives,” Stonemeier said. “Weakening integration mandates could mean the difference between living at home with support or being forced into places someone hasn’t chosen and that may not be suitable.”
Advocates warn that enforcing the DOJ opinion might push the disability community back toward institutionalization.
“In the past, individuals were confined to rooms without beds or chairs, deprived of clothing, and left emaciated and starving, often harming themselves due to unmet basic needs, much less essential services like communication and wound care,” Stonemeier explained.
She urged vigilance regarding the DOJ decision’s effects because it could shape the future accessibility of disability services.
“It’s easy to think ‘that affects someone else’ until a crisis strikes,” Stonemeier noted. “Anyone can become part of this group due to accidents, illness, or other reasons.”
Original article: houstonpublicmedia.org
About the Author
