Department of Justice Announces New Position on Integration Mandates for People with Disabilities
Introduction
On June 18, 2026, the Department of Justice's (DOJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a slip opinion titled Application of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to State Institutionalization of Patients with Severe Mental Illness or Disabilities.
The opinion does not itself change the law. It supplies the executive branch's legal rationale for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and DOJ to rescind the integration regulations and provide a basis for retreating from prior enforcement positions, a prospect that matters acutely now that ED has announced partnerships under which HHS will take on an operational role in special education and rehabilitative services and DOJ will take on an operational role in civil rights enforcement.
A Brief History of the Applicable Laws
Throughout U.S. history, people with disabilities were often separated from the rest of the public and forced to live in asylums, facilities, "colonies," and other group settings. The practical effect was that many were excluded from education, employment, and other aspects of civic life, and separated from their families. Confinement could be temporary or permanent. Conditions in these facilities, including institutional abuse, neglect, and overcrowding, prompted a mid-twentieth-century policy shift toward community-based services rather than isolating institutions. Many people with disabilities still live in institutions, but many more live successfully in the community with appropriate supports.
In response to the lack of legal rights and protections for people with disabilities, a few important pieces of legislation were passed. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance and is often credited with jumpstarting a disability rights movement that eventually led to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. Title II of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in public services provided by public entities.
Regulations issued by HHS and DOJ require covered entities to administer programs "in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of a qualified person with a disability." See 45 C.F.R. Part 84 (HHS); 28 C.F.R. Part 35 (DOJ). The Supreme Court relied in part on these regulations, as they existed at the time, in deciding Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), and held that unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination.
The Olmstead decision did not abolish institutional care. Under the framework that has generally been understood and applied after Olmstead, states must provide community-based treatment when a person can be appropriately served in the community, does not oppose community placement, and can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with mental disabilities.
The 2026 Opinion
The 2026 slip opinion answers three questions about what DOJ refers to as the "integration mandate": (1) whether Olmstead conclusively decided that Section 504 and Title II impose, or authorize the imposition of, the integration mandate; (2) assuming the question remains open, whether Congress constitutionally could impose such a mandate; and (3) whether Congress statutorily did impose such a mandate.
DOJ responds that Olmstead did not conclusively decide that Section 504 and Title II impose, or authorize agencies to impose, an integration mandate, and that Congress did not statutorily impose one. Having decided these issues, DOJ concludes that it need not resolve the question of whether Congress could constitutionally impose an integration mandate, though it reasons that a statutory integration mandate would raise serious constitutional questions under the Spending Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The OLC opinion is a significant shift in interpretation. DOJ indicates that HHS and DOJ can lawfully rescind the integration regulations and related guidance. It states that discrimination occurs only when placement rests on "the mere fact of disability" and that institutional treatment is not discriminatory if the state has "any nonarbitrary rationale" for it.[i]
The opinion is signed by Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC. OLC provides legal advice to the President and to executive agencies. Its opinions do not bind the courts, but they are generally treated as controlling within the executive branch and signal the direction the executive is likely to take.
Additional Comments
Rescinding an agency regulation—a requirement that carries the force of law—requires notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Agency guidance is not legally binding and can be easily rescinded by an agency without prior notice.
Notably, DOJ acknowledges that the view in this opinion is inconsistent with the common understanding of Olmstead in the federal courts. If HHS and DOJ proceed as recommended by this memo, significant confusion will follow over when and where different interpretations apply, and that confusion could persist for years as legal challenges unfold.
The opinion also lands while Texas v. Kennedy, a multistate challenge to the integration mandate, moves through the courts. With this opinion, the federal government's position now substantially aligns with the plaintiff states' position on the integration mandate.
These interpretations are particularly significant given recent statements by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about "wellness farms," which are strongly reminiscent of older institutions. DOJ’s interpretations are more significant still given ED's recent announcement that HHS will partner on special education and rehabilitative services and DOJ will partner on civil rights enforcement. If these agencies change their interpretations on mandatory integration, the change may affect how education programs are enforced and how complaints are investigated and resolved.
In the education context, the integration requirements are similar in concept and operation to IDEA's requirement that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. What the opinion does not do is equally important for schools. It addresses Title II of the ADA and Section 504. It does not touch the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. For example, IDEA's least-restrictive-environment requirement is a freestanding statutory command that this opinion neither addresses nor disturbs.[ii] LEAs should not read the opinion as loosening their IDEA obligations.
How Sligo Law Group Can Help
For counsel on your organization’s obligations under IDEA, the ADA, or Section 504, please contact us to schedule a consultation.
[i] See page 28: “Rather than attempting to provide an exhaustive list of proper justifications, we conclude that institutional treatment constitutes disability discrimination only where the mere fact of disability—as opposed to the special needs resulting from that disability—is the sole factor motivating the choice of treatment setting. In other words, where the state has any nonarbitrary rationale for treating a disabled person in an institution, such treatment is not discriminatory under section 504 or Title II.”
[ii] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5) states that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” This is also addressed in Department of Education regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.114).