What does an independent reviewer do in an Olmstead settlement?

An independent reviewer is an outside expert the parties pick to check whether a state is keeping its promises. In Maine's 2024 agreement, the reviewer would gather and analyze data, visit programs and residences, review service plans and case files, interview children, families, providers and state staff, and publish an annual public report on compliance with each obligation.

Can a state and the Justice Department change a court-approved settlement on their own?

Not when a court has kept jurisdiction and the agreement requires court approval for changes. In the Maine case, the district court treated the deal like a consent decree and required a significant change in facts or law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) before it could be modified. The First Circuit is now reviewing that ruling.

Maine ADA settlement: groups ask 1st Circuit to keep reviewer

Four disability rights groups asked the 1st Circuit on Oct. 26 to keep the independent reviewer in Maine's 2024 ADA children's services settlement. Maine and the U.S. Justice Department want the reviewer gone; a district judge refused.

policy · maine · olmstead · ada · children · behavioral-health · settlement · first-circuit · deep-dive

Direct Support News desk · October 27, 2026 · Updated October 29, 2026 · 5 min read

Four disability and civil rights groups have asked a federal appeals court to block changes that would remove the independent reviewer from Maine's 2024 Americans with Disabilities Act settlement over children's behavioral health services. Their friend-of-the-court brief, filed Oct. 26, 2026, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Nos. 26-1095 and 26-1171), defends a November 2025 district court order that refused to let the state and the U.S. Department of Justice rewrite the deal. The ACLU of Maine announced the filing on Oct. 27, and Maine Public reported it on Oct. 28.

The groups are Disability Rights Maine, the ACLU of Maine, GLAD Law and the Center for Public Representation. They note an unusual feature of the appeal: Maine and the federal government both want the lower court's order reversed, so no party is defending it. The original settlement stays in effect while the appeal is pending, according to the ACLU of Maine.

How the case got here

The Justice Department, acting on a complaint from Disability Rights Maine, found in June 2022 that the state was violating the ADA by unnecessarily segregating children with mental health and developmental disabilities. It sued in September 2024, alleging that children who lacked services at home ended up in psychiatric hospitals, residential facilities and the state's Long Creek juvenile detention center. The case relied on Title II of the ADA and the Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead decision, which treats unjustified institutional isolation as discrimination.

The two sides settled in November 2024. In its announcement at the time, the department said Maine would have to:

serve children at home or in foster homes so they can avoid emergency room stays and institutions;
help children move out of institutions, including Long Creek, when their needs can be met at home and families want that;
provide care coordination and prompt mobile crisis response;
address current and future workforce shortages among community providers, including through payment rates and support; and
improve oversight of community providers and track whether services arrive on time.

On Dec. 20, 2024, U.S. District Judge Stacey D. Neumann dismissed the lawsuit but kept jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The settlement says it can be changed only with both sides' written consent and the court's approval.

What the state and DOJ want to change

In September 2025, before a reviewer had been hired, Maine and the Justice Department jointly asked the court to amend the agreement. According to the district court's order, the proposed changes would:

remove the independent reviewer, an outside expert who would collect data, visit programs, review case files, interview families and providers, and publish an annual compliance report;
require that a child's arrest be known to Maine's Department of Health and Human Services before it triggers an assessment;
reduce reporting on children whose families decline in-home services or whose needs the state says it cannot meet at home;
drop requirements for community outreach to families and stakeholders;
change the state's reporting and provider training requirements; and
remove community reintegration planning for children committed to a juvenile correctional facility.

According to the brief, the federal government said in the motion that it had reconsidered its position and now supported self-reporting by Maine in place of a reviewer. The brief also says Maine picked a reviewer in April 2025 but withdrew the award in May 2025 after the United States declined to approve the choice.

What the district court decided

Judge Neumann denied the request on Nov. 24, 2025. She ruled that because the court had kept jurisdiction and the agreement required court approval for changes, the deal works like a consent decree. That means the parties had to show a significant change in facts or law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), the standard the Supreme Court set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail.

The court found no such change. It called the claim that dropping the reviewer would save the state money "unconvincing," saying anticipated costs of compliance are not a changed circumstance. It also cited other courts' rulings that a change in presidential administration does not, by itself, justify changing such an agreement. The judge added that there was no evidence the cuts would help Maine comply and that they "may in actuality make it harder" to tell whether it is complying. Maine and the United States then appealed.

What the advocates argue now

The coalition's brief asks the First Circuit to affirm. It argues that if two parties could change a court-approved settlement just by agreeing to, court approval would be a formality, and every protection in the agreement would last only until the parties chose to drop it. It says the proposed changes would strike most of the family outreach section and the requirement for "mandatory, competency-based curricula" for providers and care coordinators. The brief also says Maine has since reissued the solicitation for the reviewer and conditionally awarded the contract. No date for oral argument appears in the brief.

What this means for providers and DSPs

This case concerns children's behavioral health services in Maine, but the question on appeal reaches further: can a state and the federal government quietly loosen a disability rights settlement once it is signed? We reported Oct. 26 that the Justice Department has been pulling back from Olmstead cases in other states. A First Circuit ruling for the state and DOJ would make it easier to scale back similar agreements without a judge finding that anything had changed.

For Maine provider agencies that serve children and families, the settlement's terms remain in force for now. That includes the state's commitments on provider payment rates, workforce shortages and oversight of community providers. Agencies should expect continued state attention to service timeliness and data. If a reviewer is eventually seated, the agreement lets that person visit programs, read case files and interview staff.

For DSPs and other direct care staff who support children at home, the stakes are practical. The settlement's goal is more in-home and community services and fewer children sent to hospitals, residential facilities or Long Creek. Whether that work is checked by an independent expert or by the state's own reports will shape how gaps in staffing and services come to light.

We will update this story when the First Circuit schedules argument or rules.