Olmstead briefs supporting most integrated setting...

Thomas Cagle (nh-adapt@juno.com)
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:19:07 -0500


that info is available from the Bazelon web site...

To find the ADAPT, TASH and NCIL brief  go to ADAPT's website
http://www.adapt.org    Look in the Updates and Bullitens section!

For others check out Bazelon...


Olmstead v. L.C. 			Updated March 22, 1988
>From the Bazelon web site...  http://www.bazelon.org/olmstead.html

     L.C. and E.W.'s ("respondents'") brief to the Supreme Court, written
by
    Michael Gottesman of Georgetown University Law School and Atlanta
Legal
    Aid attorneys Susan Jamieson and Steven Caley. Professor Gottesman
will
    argue the case on April 21. In addition to countering the
petitioner's 
    (Georgia's) argument point by point, the brief describes the state's
historic
    resistance to the national trend of shifting services for people with
mental
    disabilities from institutions to the community. It documents the
reasons 
    LC and EW were kept in the state hospital long after the state's own
    treatment professionals had urged their placement in the community:
not 
    cost considerations but "incompetence and lack of knowledge," "the
heavy
    lobbying of unions representing employees in institutions," and "the
self-
    interest of the officials who run these institutions, who are
reluctant to 
    surrender their turf." [PDF format ]

*The Solicitor General's brief for the United States as friend of the
court
    addresses each of Georgia's arguments, including the state's
contention
    that discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of
services
    does not apply when a service is offered only to people with
disabilities.
    The brief documents that Congress, when enacting the ADA,
specifically
    recognized that the segregation of people with disabilities in
institutions,
    by stigmatizing them and depriving them of access to public services
    enjoyed by others, itself has discriminatory effects of the precise
type 
    banned in the ADA. [PDF format ] [HTML format]

*An amicus brief by former United States Attorney General Dick Thornburgh

     and the National Organization on Disability. As Attorney General
from 1988
     to1991, Thornburgh oversaw congressional debate and passage of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act and issued its implementing
regulations, 
    including the rule spelling out the integration mandate. His brief
documents 
    Congress' intent to prohibit, as discriminatory, the unnecessary
segregation 
    of people with disabilities and, taking issue with Georgia's position
in the 
    case, describes as "consistent" the Justice Department's
interpretation of 
    the integration rule.[ PDF format ] [HTML format]

*An amicus brief by 58 former commissioners and directors of mentalhealth

   and developmental disabilites, representing 36 state. In addition to
an
    analysis of fiscal issues, the brief discusses some of the local
economic 
    and political interests that have perpetuated states' segregation of
people
    with mental disabilities in institutions— "precisely the social ill
the ADA
    and the integration mandate were meant to correct." These interests,
the
    brief says, include "influential state legislators whose
constituents' jobs or
    profits depend on institutions," labor unions that "have often
stridently
    resisted state efforts to move to community care in order to
protect...
    members' jobs," and local residents responding to stereotypes about
    mental disability with a "not in my back yard" objection to the
inclusion of
    group homes in a community—an objection the Supreme Court found 
    impermissible in a 1985 case involving a Texas group home. [ PDF
format ] 
    [HTML format]

* A brief by 30 national organizations and seven Georgia groups examines
the
    history of segregation of and discrimination against people with
    disabilities and documents the proven benefits of their inclusion in
the
    community. Those signing the brief include broad-based national
groups
    such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and
Catholic
    Charities U.S.A., as well as leading professional associations and 
    disability advocates. This brief, authored by the law firm of Howrey
& 
    Simon and the Bazelon Center, reviews the history of institutional 
    segregation of people with disabilities and the professional
literature that 
    "overwhelmingly confirms" that those "who are placed in community 
    settings can develop fuller, more enjoyable lives in ways
non-disabled 
    persons take for granted, but which are essentially impossible to
achieve 
    in an institution—they attend movies, go shopping, enjoy parks and 
    recreation, and visit friends." Pointing out that the 11 states
supporting 
    Georgia's appeal "do so even though many of their own state statutes 
    take a contrary position," the brief examines some specific state
policies. 
   [PDF format ] [HTML format]

* A brief by 10 organizations of activist consumers/survivors (consumers
of
    mental health services and survivors of psychiatric illness) and
eight
    individual consumers/survivors who have experienced both
institutional
    and community mental health services and now live successfully in the
    community. Through their personal accounts, the brief describes the 
    various types of community services available as a result of the 
    integration mandate and details how access to these services has 
    enabled formerly institutionalized individuals to become productive 
    members of society. [PDF format ] [HTML format]

*A brief by grassroots organizations of Americans with disabilities,
    including an organization started in 1974 as People First and now
known
    as Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered. Three fourths of the neatly
20,000
    active members "were once segregated into institutions and now are
not," states
    the brief written by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.
The groups
    "write to put before the Court desegregation as they have experienced
    it, the weight of the invidious history as they have suffered it, and
a
    sense of the freedom and responsibility of citizenship as they now
live it." 
    [PDF format ] [HTML format]

*A link to the brief of the National Council on Disability, the
independent
    federal agency that played a lead role in drafting the legislation
    ultimately enacted as the ADA and has monitored its implementation in
    the eight years since. Citing the council's participation in
development of
    the law, the brief concludes that "it would have protested
vehemently" had
    there been "even a hint that Title II would not prohibit" unnecessary
    institutionalization. "But there was no such hint," it states, and
the
    council "was quite comfortable lending its unequivocal support."

* A link to the brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, which likens
    discrimination against people with disabilities to racial and other
    forms of discrimination. On the ACLU site: 
    www.aclu.org/court/olmsteadvlc.html

*A link to the brief of the American Psychiatric Association and the
    National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which takes the position
that, while
    institutional care may be appropriate for some individuals with
mental
    illness, it is discriminatory to deprive those wo do not need it of
the
    benefits of community integration. The brief will be on www.nami.org.
    A link to the amicus brief of three national organizations of people
    with disabilities: ADAPT, the National Council on Independent Living
and
    TASH. A link to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th
    Circuit, which found "little question that the plain language of [the

    regulation] prohibits a state from providing services to individuals
with
    disabilities in an unsegregated setting."
    Amicus Brief in the 11th Circuit



Bazelon Home Page

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law - bazelon@tidalwave.net


___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]