Is Olmstead v. L.C. still the law?

Yes. The 1999 Supreme Court decision remains precedent, and Title II of the ADA and Section 504 still apply. What changed in 2026 is the Justice Department's interpretation and enforcement: a June 18 Office of Legal Counsel opinion says the laws impose no integration mandate, but courts and private plaintiffs are not bound by that view.

Can people still sue under Olmstead if DOJ will not?

Yes. Both Title II and Section 504 can be enforced through private lawsuits. The Congressional Research Service notes that private cases can be slower and harder to bring at scale, in part because class certification creates hurdles DOJ does not face.

Olmstead: CRS maps DOJ exits in Florida, Texas, N.C. cases

A new CRS Legal Sidebar tracks how the Justice Department has pulled back from Olmstead enforcement since June, case by case. The 1999 ruling still stands, and private suits remain possible.

policy · olmstead · ada · section-504 · doj · community-integration · hcbs · florida · texas · north-carolina · deep-dive

Direct Support News desk · October 26, 2026 · Updated October 27, 2026 · 4 min read

A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) Legal Sidebar, dated Oct. 26, puts in one place what the Justice Department has done on Olmstead v. L.C. since June: a new legal opinion, a retreat from its own guidance, and a string of exits from long-running cases in Texas, Florida and North Carolina. CRS writes for members of Congress and does not take sides, but its summary makes plain how far federal enforcement of the community integration rule has shifted in four months.

What DOJ changed

The starting point is a June 18, 2026 opinion from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It concludes that neither Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act nor Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act imposed an "integration mandate" on states, and that the Supreme Court in Olmstead did not hold that states must serve people in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. As CRS describes it, OLC reads those laws to bar only "irrational" institutionalization. Under that reading, a state could point to reasons such as safety, limited space or resources in community settings, or needs that stem from a person's disability.

On July 20, DOJ followed with a Federal Register notice saying its earlier Olmstead guidance, including its 2011 guidance, is "not enforceable" and that the department will not rely on it. DOJ said it plans to "revisit" that guidance.

The cases CRS lists

CRS says DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have cited the OLC opinion and the July notice to change positions in active litigation:

Texas v. Kennedy. Texas and other states sued HHS over the integration provisions in its 2024 Section 504 rule. HHS agreed to settle by asking the court to vacate those provisions, and on Sept. 23 the court did so nationwide. DSN covered that ruling.
United States v. Florida. DOJ had litigated this case since 2013 over Florida children with complex medical needs, covering about 140 children in nursing facilities and more than 1,800 at risk of entering one. The Eleventh Circuit largely upheld an injunction against the state in March 2026. DOJ has since asked the appeals court to withdraw that decision and said it no longer seeks to enforce the injunction or the "at-risk" theory. The court sent the case to mediation and invited counsel for the at-risk children to take part.
Steward v. Abbott. In 2025 a federal court found Texas violated the ADA and Section 504 by leaving nursing home residents with intellectual disabilities without services that could have let them live in the community. On Aug. 6, 2026, DOJ withdrew from the case and stipulated to dismissal of its claims.
North Carolina. On Sept. 14, a federal court granted a joint DOJ and North Carolina motion to end a 2012 settlement over the institutionalization of people with serious mental illness.

The OLC opinion itself says DOJ has obtained consent decrees, court orders or out-of-court agreements in "nearly a dozen states." CRS notes that DOJ may seek to end or modify others.

What hasn't changed

Olmstead is still Supreme Court precedent, and Title II and Section 504 still apply. CRS stresses that both laws can be enforced through private lawsuits, and that neither private plaintiffs nor courts are bound by DOJ's reading. The Arc of the United States, which tracks the federal actions on a resource page, makes the same point.

CRS also lists the limits of private enforcement. Olmstead cases can take years, require expertise in health policy and medicine, and involve thousands of class members. Private plaintiffs may lack the resources DOJ brought, and class certification creates hurdles DOJ does not face.

For Congress, CRS outlines options in both directions. Lawmakers could amend Title II and Section 504 to match the OLC opinion, or write the Olmstead holding or a broader integration rule into law. They could also shape the balance between institutional and community services through spending programs such as Medicaid. A House resolution reaffirming Olmstead, H.Res. 1586, is pending, and 18 governors objected to the OLC memo in September.

What this means for providers and DSPs

No immediate change to services or rules for community providers. Waiver rules, state licensing and existing individual support plans are not changed by the OLC opinion. Providers should watch state decisions, not just federal ones.
Settlement-driven commitments may loosen. Where a DOJ agreement pushed a state to build home and community-based services, fund community placements or move people out of institutions, the federal pressure behind those commitments may fade if DOJ seeks to end them. Agencies whose growth or rates were tied to those agreements should ask their state what it plans to keep.
State budgets will carry more weight. CRS notes that DOJ's position may give states more room to allocate resources differently. In budget-tight years, that could affect waiver slots and community rates, and with them direct support professional jobs.
Private lawsuits remain possible. CRS notes that individuals and advocacy groups can still sue under Title II and Section 504, so states and the agencies they fund are not free of Olmstead claims. Clear records of community options offered, waitlists and transition planning remain good practice.

For background on the 1999 decision and what courts have read it to require, see our explainer on Olmstead.