A United States District Court has vacated several provisions related to community integration for people with disabilities.
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division — in the State of Texas, et al, vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. case — said in its Sept. 23 judgment that it vacated several provisions of the final rule Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 40,066 (May 9, 2024), and of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Those provisions included:
— The definition of “most integrated setting” in 45 C.F.R. § 84.10.
— The last sentence of 45 C.F.R. § 84.22(b), which reads, “In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, a recipient shall give priority to those methods that offer programs and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate.”
— The last sentence of 45 C.F.R. § 84.93(b), Methods: “In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, a recipient shall give priority to those methods that offer programs and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting
appropriate.”
Kennedy was listed in the case because of his current position as Department of Health & Human Services secretary. The statement was signed by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix.
The decision follows a June notice from the U.S. Department of Justice that the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Olmstead v. L.C. was “not enforceable.” The so-called Olmstead decision — filed on behalf of two women with mental illness and developmental disabilities — centered on whether the women were entitled to move from a psychiatric unit in the state-operated Georgia Regional Hospital to a community-based program, as their clinicians suggested and the women preferred.
The Supreme Court ruled that public entities were required to provide community-based services to people with disabilities when those people prefer to live in their communities and can be reasonably accommodated.
Reaction from disability advocates to the Texas v. Kennedy decision was swift.
“The court order vacates provisions referencing the longstanding right to community integration for people with disabilities in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,” said The Arc of Washington State, a nonprofit disability advocacy organization. “Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs. The federal government’s Section 504 regulations have included integration provisions since 1977. The court’s order in Texas v. Kennedy accepting the parties’ agreement breaks with decades of case law recognizing and upholding the right of people with disabilities to live, learn and work in their communities.
“We strongly and unequivocally condemn the federal government’s abandonment of its duty to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities.”
“The court ruling in Texas v. Kennedy is another brick in a growing wall of uncertainty around the rights and support people with disabilities rely on to live independently,” said Easterseals CEO/President Kendra Davenport in a Sept. 25 statement. “Removing clear federal protections for community integration sends the wrong message to states and families at a time when Medicaid, home- and community-based services, and other critical resources are already under tremendous pressure. It takes away clear federal direction at a time when people with disabilities and their families need more certainty, not less.”
While both The Arc and Easterseals noted that the court decision didn’t remove Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Olmstead decision, Davenport added, “But legal rights have to mean something in people’s everyday lives. Without strong protections and access to services at home and in the community, people with disabilities and their families can be left facing choices no American should have to make: go without needed care or give up the independence, family life, and community connections everyone deserves.”
