- IdiomaAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Inicio / Álbums / The Olmstead v. LC & EW Supreme Court Decision, June 22 1999 29
Data do envío / 2019 / Setembro
- ADAPT (1179)
[added text lays over the document reading This Victory by ADAPT] [original document reads] Supreme Court of the United States Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al [illegible] by zimring, guardian [illegible] and next friends [illegible] Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District No 98-[illegible] argued April 21, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999 In the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. 12101 (a) (2), (5). Title II of the ADA, which proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, "by reason of such disability," be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, a public entity's services, programs, or activities. 12132. Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing Title II's discrimination proscription. See 12134 (a). One such regulation, known as the "integration regulation," requires a "public entity [to administer...programs...in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 CFR 35.130 (d). A further prescription, here called the "reasonable-modifications regulation," requires public entities to "make reasonable modifications" to avoid "discrimination..on the basis of disability" but does not require - ADAPT (1180)
[added text lays over the document reading This Victory by ADAPT] [original document reads] Supreme Court of the United States No. 98-536 Tommy Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al., Petitioners v. L. C., by Jonathan Zimring, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al. On writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [illegible date] Justice Ginsburg announced [illegible] and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts [illegible] with respect to Part III-B, in which O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer, joined. This case concerns the proper construction of the anti-discrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act [illegible] Stat. 337, 42 U.S.C. 12132. Specifically, we confront the question whether the [illegible] may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings [illegible] in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes. Such action is in order when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with [text cuts off] [text resumes] For the reasons stated we conclude that, under Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities when the State's treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose such treatment, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. The judgement of the Eleventh Circuit is therefore affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. - ADAPT (1186)
Doc-06-93 01:00P We spend over $50 billion a year on long-term care services, that's a lot of money. But only 20% of that goes to community living. Well, I say, at the very least, we need a level playing field. We have to find a way to let the money follow the person so each person can be free. We need to create systems that have people with disabilities at the center, in control of services of their own choice. We need to replace the medical model of service delivery with the independent living model that is what people want, and let us be clear it saves money. And we need to convince all those in this capitol and in state capitols and in corporate boardrooms around the nation one simple fact: self determination is in America's self interest. I know for many of you here today, this is not a matter of developing policy it is a literal struggle for your lives, and the lives of your friends and colleagues. I know many of you have lived in institutions yourselves. You know the frustration, you know the indignity, you know the anger that comes from not living free lives in the community Let me say this to each one of you: Your struggle for freedom has not been in vain. Your fight to gain the attention of those of us here in Washington is working. But our work isn't done. We need to educate. We need to say no to legislating by fear and anecdote. And we need to remind our elected officials that we still have promises to keep. And let's remember this isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans. - Lois Curtis
Close up of Lois Curtis (LC) one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court Olmstead decision. Photo by Tom Olin - ADAPT (1175)
[graphic footprint on an American disabilities flag] [Heading] Don't tread on the ADA [Subheading] Integration NOT Segregation Join ADAPT and THOUSANDS OF DISABILITY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS for a day supporting disability rights and opposing the "Olmstead vs L.C. and E.W." threat to community living. Support the ADA's "Most Integrated Setting" mandate -the peoples' right to choose where we live and receive support services. Send a message to the Supreme Court Justices, Congress and the Clinton Administration. Where: Supreme Court Steps 1 First Street N.E. - Washington, D.C. When: Wednesday, May 12th, 1999. Arrive 11:30 am, Begin noon. For Information, call (512) 442-0252 or (303) 733-9324 adapt@adapt.org ACTION REMINDER - ADAPT National Action May 8th through May 13th - ADAPT (1181)
[title] Victory in Olmstead by Homer Page On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Olmstead Case. Olmstead originated in Georgia and involved two women with disabilities who desired to live in an integrated setting. For the first time the court affirmed the right of persons with disabilities to live in the most appropriate integrated setting... - ADAPT (1185)
Disability policy know no party affiliation. We must solidify our base of support and expand it to new members. Let's never make disability a partisan issue. So go out and visit your representatives and your Senators. Keep the message simple and straight forward. Share your experiences. Tell your story. Together we will move forward. Together we will make change happen. And together we'll make personal assistance services available to all who need it. Thank you. - ADAPT (1174)
THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONAL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999 [Headline] States Limited on Institutionalization [Subheading] U.S. Disabilities Act Requires Medical Justification Court Says By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, June 22 — Isolating people with disabilities in big state institutions when there is no medical reason for their confinement is a form of discrimination that violates Federal disabilities law, the Supreme Court ruled today. The 6-to-3 decision, in a case brought against the State of Georgia by two women with mental impairment, was a substantial victory for a disabilities rights movement that has looked to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as a tool for breaking down institutional walls that separate people with serious mental and physical problems from the larger community. The ruling affirmed, in most respects, a decision last year by the Federal appeals court in Atlanta, which held that states have a duty under the 1990 law to provide care in group homes when medically appropriate. In 1994, the Federal appeals court in Philadelphia, in the only other appellate decision on the subject, reached the same result. The Supreme Court's decision six months ago to hear Georgia's appeal in this case alarmed advocates for people with disabilities, who feared that the Court might steer the law in the opposite direction and reverse the nationwide trend toward deinstitutionalization. An unusually vigorous grass-roots campaign sprang up around the case, leading 15 of the 22 states that had originally supported Georgia to disavow the state's position in the Supreme Court. The case involved a 1995 lawsuit filed on behalf of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, both of them mentally retarded and mentally ill, who sought state care outside the Georgia Regional Hospital, where they had lived off and on for years. Both remained in the hospital for several years after state doctors had concluded that they could be more appropriately cared for in small group homes. In some respects, the decision today was the Court's first rather than last, word on the subject, and it may require more cases to clarify the full dimensions of the ruling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's majority opinion held that states' obligation to care for people in small, neighborhood based settings was limited to some degree by available resources. States are not required to close their big hospitals — which, the Court emphasized, may still be appropriate for some people — or to create group home programs that they do not now have. (In fact, though, every state now has such a program.) The decision interpreted a regulation that requires states to make "reasonable modifications" in their programs to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities, while at the same time providing that states need not make "fundamental" alterations. Justice Ginsburg said that if a state "were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the state's endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated, the reasonable modifications standard would be met." [image] [image caption] Associated Press. The Court heard the case of Elaine Wilson, left, and Lois Curtis, mentally impaired women who sought care outside a state hospital. That interpretation did not give the states enough leeway to satisfy the three dissenting Justices. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, said the decision imposed "significant federalism costs" and failed to "respect the states' historical role as the dominant authority responsible for providing services to individuals with disabilities." Justice Thomas predicted that states would "now be forced to defend themselves in Federal court every time resources prevent the immediate placement of a qualified individual." He said that rather than addressing discrimination in any conventional sense, the majority was imposing its own "standard of care." [pulled quote] States must provide care in group homes when appropriate. [text resumes] The majority opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy concurred in a separate opinion, noting that "the depopulation of state mental hospitals has its dark side" and warning that the decision should not be interpreted "to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision." Justice Breyer also signed that part of Justice Kennedy's opinion. While the decision, Olmstead v. L.C., No. 98-536, referred throughout to mental disabilities, the ruling also applies to the states' obligations to people with serious physical disabilities. The decision interpreted Title II of the disabilities act, which prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against people or excluding them from programs "by reason of" their disabilities. A regulation issued by the Attorney General at Congress's direction, after the law's adoption, provides that "a public entity shall administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities," with "integrated setting" defined as "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible." Georgia argued that the two mentally impaired women involved in the case did not come within the disabilities law's protection because they had not been subjected to discrimination, which the state defined as unequal treatment. Justice Ginsburg said today that in the context of the Federal law, "unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as dis-crimination based on disability." ”Institutional placement of per-sons who can handle and benefit from community setting perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that per-sons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life," Justice Ginsburg continued. She added that "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement and cultural enrichment." One of the two plaintiffs lives today in a three-person group home, and the other lives in her own apartment, with supportive services. Ira Burnim, the legal director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an organization here that coordinated Supreme Court briefs on the women's behalf, praised the decision. "This is the first time the Court has announced that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination," he said in an interview, adding that the disabilities rights movement had been work-ing toward this goal for 30 years. - ADAPT (1187)
Yes to inclusion. Yes to independence. Yes to empowerment. And that means yes to personal assistance services. Americans with disabilities deserve first-rate personal assistance services, not second class status. And that is why all of us who fought so hard for the ADA arc watching the Supreme Court for their decision in the Olmstead case. Let me make my position on that case crystal clear to you. I believe that any person who receives Medicaid funding for long-term services has the right to receive those services in the most integrated setting appropriate to his or her needs. And I believe that the ADA clearly protects that right. Keeping a person in an institution when that person is able to live in the community is discrimination, plain and simple. We all hope the Supreme Court agrees. Make no mistake about it, we have made tremendous progress toward the goal of eliminating unnecessary institutional living and expanding community-based support. In addition to the ADA, our state institutions are a case in point. In 1968, only thirty years ago, our state institutions were bulging with over 228,000 men and women with disabilities. Now those same facilities house a little more than 57,000 people. This is undeniable progress for which we should all be proud. But many of those remaining 57,000 people and thousands more in nursing homes are still in institutions because of misguided federal policies. That is wrong, and it must change. - ADAPT (1194)
26A Denver Rocky Mountain News World & Nation Insidedenver.com/keyword: AP News Desk — (303). 892-2728 e-mail newsdesk@denver-rmn.com [Headline] Court rules in favor of disabled [Subheading] Supreme Court says group homes appropriate for some hospitalized mental patients By Linda Greenhouse The New York Times WASHINGTON Isolating people with dis-abilities in big state institutions when there is no medical reason for their confinement is a form of discrimination that violates federal dis-abilities law, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The 6-3 decision, in a case brought against the state of Georgia by two women with mental impairment, was a substantial victory for a disabilities rights movement. That movement has looked to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as a tool for breaking down institutional walls that separate people with serious mental and physical problems from the larger community. The ruling affirmed, in most respects, a decision last year by the federal appeals court m Atlanta, which held that states have a duty under the 1990 law to provide care in group homes when medically appropriate. In 1994 the federal appeals court in Philadelphia, in the only other appellate decision on [separate article begins] IN COLORADO Activists for the disabled in Colorado said Tuesday's Supreme Court decision is a major victory. "It's a critical step to show the state that people have the right to choose where and how they receive services and that segregated services will not be tolerated," said Joe Ehman, organizer with ADAPT, which works on issues for the disabled. "It says to (Gov. Bill) Owens that people have a right to choose where they live, and it's not the state's job to do that." Colorado was one of seven states that supported a Georgia law that kept two women in mental hospitals long after Georgia's department of human services recommended they be transferred to the community. Mike McLachlan, solicitor general with the Colorado Attorney General's office, said he had not seen the decision. However, he said he believes that the ruling will have little impact on Colorado. "Colorado already by law encourages community settings instead of institutions," he said. "The question is the speed by which the people who are in institutions must be integrated into the community." It was not known Tuesday how many people in Colorado would be affected. — Tillie Fong, News Staff Writer [this article ends] [originally article resumes] the subject, reached the same result. The Supreme Court's decision six months ago to hear Georgia's' appeal in this case alarmed advocates for people with disabilities, who feared that the court might steer the law in the opposite direction and reverse the nationwide trend toward deinstitutionalization. An unusually vigorous grass-roots campaign sprang up around the case, leading 15 of the 22 states that had originally supported Georgia to disavow the state's position in the Supreme Court. The case involved a 1995 lawsuit filed on behalf of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, both of them mentally retarded and mentally ill, who sought state care outside the Georgia Regional Hospital, where they had lived, off and on, for years. Both remained in the hospital for sever-al years after state doctors had concluded that they could be more appropriately cared for in small group homes. In some respects, the decision Tuesday was the court's first, rather than last, word on the subject, and it may require more cases to clarify the full dimensions of the ruling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's majority opinion held that states' obligation to care for people in small, neighborhood-based settings was limited to some degree by available resources. States are not required to close their big hospitals — which, the court stressed, may still be appropriate for some people — or to create group home programs that they do not now have. In fact, though, every state now has such a program. The decision interpreted a regulation that requires states to make "reasonable modifications" in their programs to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities, while at the same time providing that states heed not make "fundamental" alterations. - ADAPT (1185)
Disability policy know no party affiliation. We must solidify our base of support and expand it to new members. Let's never make disability a partisan issue. So go out and visit your representatives and your Senators. Keep the message simple and straight forward. Share your experiences. Tell your story. Together we will move forward. Together we will make change happen. And together we'll make personal assistance services available to all who need it. Thank you. - Sue Jamieson, the lead attorney in the Olmstead case, at Atlanta Olmstead rally 2009
Sue Jamieson was the lead attorney in the Olmstead v LC and EW case that went to the Supreme Court. - ADAPT (1182)
J. Joseph Curran, Jr. Attorney General Carmen M. Shepard Donna Hill Staton Deputy Attorneys General State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General Telefone No. (410) 576-6955 Writer's Direct Dial No. (410) 576-6318 January 14, 1999 Florida Attorney General's Office The Capitol, Suite PLO1 Tallahassee, Florida 323994-1050 Re: Olmstead v, LC and E. W, by Zimring Dear Attorney General: Please be advised that the State of Maryland will not be offering milieus support in the above-referearteed case. Sincerely, [signed] J. Joseph Corran, Jr. [typed J. Joseph Curran, jr. Attorney General JJC:dom - ADAPT (1190)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Mike Fisher Attorney General 15th floor, Strawberry Sq. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Fax: (717) 772-4526 Phone: (717) 787-1100 January 29, 1999 Stephanie A. Daniel Assistant Attorney General Attorney General's Office The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Via mall and fax Re: Olmstead v. L.C., No, 98-536 Dear Ms. Daniel: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not wish to join the brief on the merits which Florida has prepared in the above case. Sincerely, [signed] Louis J. Rovelli [typed] Louis J. Rovelli Executive Deputy Attorney General Director, Civil Law Division Litigation Section JGK/hs - ADAPT (1183)
State of Mississippi Office of the Attorney General Mike Moore Attorney General Civil Litigation Section Robert L. Sanders [illegible phone number] [illegible email address] March 19, 1999 Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, D. C. 20543 re: Tommy Olmstead v. L.C. and E. W. by Zimring, No. 98-536 Dear Clerk, The State of Mississippi hereby withdraws from the Amicus Curise Brief of the States in Support of Petitioners in the above cause. We will furnish a representative to physically redact the Mississippi signature block from copies of briefs on file with the Court. Please contact me if anything further is required. With best wishes, I am Very truly yours [signed] Robert E. Sanders [typed] Robert E. Sanders Assistant Attorney General RES/vs cc: Frankie Sue Del Papa, Anne B. Cathcart, Albert Gilbert