Featured Article
Article Title
“Forwards, Not Backwards”: How the U.S. Supreme Court May Save the Plight of Individuals with Mental Disabilities
Authors
Angela Dixon - Mississippi College, Jackson, MS, USA
Keywords
Forensics, Evaluators, Supreme Court, Criminal Law, Correctional Law, Civil Law, Report Writing, Testimony, Practice Updates, Case Law, Psychology, Legal Cases
Summary of Research
“When federal district court Judge Carlton Reeves penned his opinion in U.S. v. Mississippi, the case that seemed poised to overhaul Mississippi’s suffering mental health system, he began with the story of Ms. Melanie Worsham, a mental health patient [who] works to help those like herself who suffer with lifelong serious mental illness (SMI) to ‘overcome the obstacles that might be getting in their way of living the life they want to live.’ She also assists those with SMI by aiding in ‘navigating the system, to find resources, and then just being moral support’ …
Disability rights advocates find themselves again likely on the side of desiring avoidance of a circuit split… this Article highlights …how the use of the courts can be instrumental in expanding community-based access to services…
The Atlanta Legal Aid Society brought the Olmstead case in 1995 on behalf of Ms. Elaine Wilson and Ms. Lois Curtis. Hospital staff said the status of both women warranted transfer to supportive community programs, but the women remained institutionalized for an extended period. Both women’s histories revealed a pattern of multiple readmissions, an indicator of weak community support services” (p. 234- 236).
“...The Supreme Court found long-term continued confinement of the women to be discriminatory. Extended confinement perpetuated ‘unwarranted assumptions’ about the inability of people with mental illness to participate fully in community life. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “[u]njustified isolation” equates with “discrimination based on disability.” In making its decision, the Court considered the diminished quality of life longtime institutionalization perpetuates: truncating social life, inhibiting continued nurturing of familial bonds, stifling educational and professional growth, prohibiting economic advancement, and suffocating cultural enrichment.
According to the district court, the DOJ’s experts proved that Mississippi could reasonably accommodate community-based mental health services within the state’s existing mental health system. The state needed only to address the identified deficiencies. Therefore, the district court rejected Mississippi’s defense that making the changes would fundamentally alter the state’s mental health system” (p. 237- 239).
“In U.S. v. Florida, the State of Florida administered services for children dealing ‘with complex medical needs.’ Complainants alleged disability discrimination contending Florida institutionalized children unnecessarily. The DOJ investigated and found that Florida violated Title II. At first, the DOJ solicited Florida’s voluntary compliance. Failing in those efforts, the DOJ filed suit. When Florida moved for judgment on the pleadings, the court denied the motion. After a couple of years, and following case reassignment to a new judge, the court recalibrated and dismissed the United States from the case. In effect, the court found that the Attorney General did not meet the classification of a “person” entitled to bring suit for remedies under the statutory scheme. On review, the appeals court reversed. It held that not being classified as a “person” under the statute did not render the Attorney General incapable of suing. The appeals court relied on the cross-references among relevant statutes to demonstrate that the text, context, and history of the enforcement mechanisms provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act, allowed for the filing of administrative complaints that could lead to enforcement suits by the Attorney General…
The decision of the Florida district court stood alone in its determination. No other court had ever rendered a decision indicating that the Attorney General could not bring suit on behalf of a Title II claimant. If a state or local government believes the Attorney General lacks the legal grounds to sue under Title II, that entity could move to dismiss a filed complaint or seek interlocutory review, as appropriate…
Interestingly, Florida recognized that the Attorney General could bring suit under both Title VI and under the Rehabilitation Act but put forth arguments that the same could not be said of Title II. Florida turned its argument (that the United States is not a person) on the fact that the United States conceded to being the ‘only plaintiff’ in the lawsuit. The United States did not litigate the case on behalf of any individual plaintiff. In response, the DOJ argued that, ‘[T]he fact that the persons whose administrative complaints instigated the process that culminated in this litigation are not plaintiffs does not mean that the suit will not ‘provide[]’ a ‘remed[y]’ for them.’ The DOJ’s complaint asked the court to require that the State of Florida cease discriminating against the victims” (p. 241- 244).
“The Eleventh Circuit rejected those arguments, and later, the Supreme Court (properly) denied Florida’s petition for certiorari, declining to hear them further. If the issue does ever arrive in front of the Supreme Court, it should reject these arguments as the Eleventh Circuit did” (p. 245).
“When Judge Reeves wrote the opinion in U.S. v. Mississippi, he entitled its closing section ‘Moving Forward.’ He expressed a belief that the DMH had made good faith efforts that were, in some ways, ‘fruitless.’ He said, ‘Community-based services have only advanced alongside the United States’ integration and enforcement litigation.’ Because the statutory construction supports that the DOJ can file a Title II lawsuit, and no legitimate federalism issues arise, the DOJ should be able to continue to file suits legally under Title II. Doing so helps to advance the realization of Olmstead’s vision…
Given the road map outlined in this discussion, what should the Supreme Court do if presented with the question of the Attorney General’s standing to file suit under Title II? Move forward” (p. 249).
Disability rights advocates find themselves again likely on the side of desiring avoidance of a circuit split… this Article highlights …how the use of the courts can be instrumental in expanding community-based access to services…
The Atlanta Legal Aid Society brought the Olmstead case in 1995 on behalf of Ms. Elaine Wilson and Ms. Lois Curtis. Hospital staff said the status of both women warranted transfer to supportive community programs, but the women remained institutionalized for an extended period. Both women’s histories revealed a pattern of multiple readmissions, an indicator of weak community support services” (p. 234- 236).
“...The Supreme Court found long-term continued confinement of the women to be discriminatory. Extended confinement perpetuated ‘unwarranted assumptions’ about the inability of people with mental illness to participate fully in community life. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “[u]njustified isolation” equates with “discrimination based on disability.” In making its decision, the Court considered the diminished quality of life longtime institutionalization perpetuates: truncating social life, inhibiting continued nurturing of familial bonds, stifling educational and professional growth, prohibiting economic advancement, and suffocating cultural enrichment.
According to the district court, the DOJ’s experts proved that Mississippi could reasonably accommodate community-based mental health services within the state’s existing mental health system. The state needed only to address the identified deficiencies. Therefore, the district court rejected Mississippi’s defense that making the changes would fundamentally alter the state’s mental health system” (p. 237- 239).
“In U.S. v. Florida, the State of Florida administered services for children dealing ‘with complex medical needs.’ Complainants alleged disability discrimination contending Florida institutionalized children unnecessarily. The DOJ investigated and found that Florida violated Title II. At first, the DOJ solicited Florida’s voluntary compliance. Failing in those efforts, the DOJ filed suit. When Florida moved for judgment on the pleadings, the court denied the motion. After a couple of years, and following case reassignment to a new judge, the court recalibrated and dismissed the United States from the case. In effect, the court found that the Attorney General did not meet the classification of a “person” entitled to bring suit for remedies under the statutory scheme. On review, the appeals court reversed. It held that not being classified as a “person” under the statute did not render the Attorney General incapable of suing. The appeals court relied on the cross-references among relevant statutes to demonstrate that the text, context, and history of the enforcement mechanisms provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act, allowed for the filing of administrative complaints that could lead to enforcement suits by the Attorney General…
The decision of the Florida district court stood alone in its determination. No other court had ever rendered a decision indicating that the Attorney General could not bring suit on behalf of a Title II claimant. If a state or local government believes the Attorney General lacks the legal grounds to sue under Title II, that entity could move to dismiss a filed complaint or seek interlocutory review, as appropriate…
Interestingly, Florida recognized that the Attorney General could bring suit under both Title VI and under the Rehabilitation Act but put forth arguments that the same could not be said of Title II. Florida turned its argument (that the United States is not a person) on the fact that the United States conceded to being the ‘only plaintiff’ in the lawsuit. The United States did not litigate the case on behalf of any individual plaintiff. In response, the DOJ argued that, ‘[T]he fact that the persons whose administrative complaints instigated the process that culminated in this litigation are not plaintiffs does not mean that the suit will not ‘provide[]’ a ‘remed[y]’ for them.’ The DOJ’s complaint asked the court to require that the State of Florida cease discriminating against the victims” (p. 241- 244).
“The Eleventh Circuit rejected those arguments, and later, the Supreme Court (properly) denied Florida’s petition for certiorari, declining to hear them further. If the issue does ever arrive in front of the Supreme Court, it should reject these arguments as the Eleventh Circuit did” (p. 245).
“When Judge Reeves wrote the opinion in U.S. v. Mississippi, he entitled its closing section ‘Moving Forward.’ He expressed a belief that the DMH had made good faith efforts that were, in some ways, ‘fruitless.’ He said, ‘Community-based services have only advanced alongside the United States’ integration and enforcement litigation.’ Because the statutory construction supports that the DOJ can file a Title II lawsuit, and no legitimate federalism issues arise, the DOJ should be able to continue to file suits legally under Title II. Doing so helps to advance the realization of Olmstead’s vision…
Given the road map outlined in this discussion, what should the Supreme Court do if presented with the question of the Attorney General’s standing to file suit under Title II? Move forward” (p. 249).
Translating Research into Practice
“‘If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.’ -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” (p. 236).
“‘If you’re not moving forward, you’re falling back.’- Sam Waterson” (p. 245).
“...In each and every case, the court must be sure to stand on solid footing in its legal analysis and reasoning. Otherwise, the public may lose confidence in its neutrality and it becomes another political wing of government…
In its essence, the community integration mandate is forward-looking, not backwards. Olmstead’s very clear goals envisioned a world of supports where people with disabilities live ‘full and meaningful lives in the community.’ Advocates believe ‘Olmstead’s promise is far from fully realized and requires robust enforcement efforts in order to achieve full implementation.’
Facilities may release patients but fail still to provide them with what they need to survive and thrive in the community. What method has been most successful in effectuating change? Litigation, specifically DOJ action under Title II” (p. 247).
“‘If you’re not moving forward, you’re falling back.’- Sam Waterson” (p. 245).
“...In each and every case, the court must be sure to stand on solid footing in its legal analysis and reasoning. Otherwise, the public may lose confidence in its neutrality and it becomes another political wing of government…
In its essence, the community integration mandate is forward-looking, not backwards. Olmstead’s very clear goals envisioned a world of supports where people with disabilities live ‘full and meaningful lives in the community.’ Advocates believe ‘Olmstead’s promise is far from fully realized and requires robust enforcement efforts in order to achieve full implementation.’
Facilities may release patients but fail still to provide them with what they need to survive and thrive in the community. What method has been most successful in effectuating change? Litigation, specifically DOJ action under Title II” (p. 247).
Other Interesting Tidbits for Researchers and Clinicians
“Experts labeled Olmstead the Brown v. Board of Education for people with disabilities. Indeed, many mental health advocates modeled the movement for mental health disability rights on the civil rights movement for racial equality… Courts look at not only the cost of providing community-based care, in light of the resources available to a state, but also the spectrum of services provided to other individuals in the state with mental disabilities. A requested modification that impedes the objectives of a state’s programs fundamentally alters that program. In the face of a fundamental alteration, a state would not have to make the modification requested” (p. 237).
“Determining that the United States satisfied each of these elements, the district court found that Mississippi violated Title II.73 In 2011, the DOJ issued regulations making it clear that ‘[i]ndividuals need not wait until the harm of institutionalization or segregation occurs or is imminent to bring Title II claims.’ Case law supports these contentions as well. The district court resolved these three issues in favor of the plaintiffs, but the court of appeals opened an entirely new door…” (p. 240).
“Determining that the United States satisfied each of these elements, the district court found that Mississippi violated Title II.73 In 2011, the DOJ issued regulations making it clear that ‘[i]ndividuals need not wait until the harm of institutionalization or segregation occurs or is imminent to bring Title II claims.’ Case law supports these contentions as well. The district court resolved these three issues in favor of the plaintiffs, but the court of appeals opened an entirely new door…” (p. 240).
Additional Resources/Programs
As always, please join the discussion below if you have thoughts or comments to add!
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg?width=1006&height=503&name=Program_Digital-Mental-Health_Main_Image%20(1).jpg)
