Center for Public Representation v. United States Department of Justice
D.D.C., Civ. No. 26-03697 (CRC)
Court Documents
Other Open Government/FOIA Cases
Center for Family Representation v. United States Department of Homeland Security
The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights v. U.S. Department of Justice
Maryland Transit Opportunities Coalition v. Federal Highway Administration
On June 18, 2026, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum titled “Application of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to State Institutionalization of Patients with Severe Mental Illness or Disabilities” (OLC Memo).
The OLC Memo purports to answer three questions: first, whether the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), “conclusively decided that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the [Americans with Disabilities Act] ADA impose (or authorize the imposition of) the integration mandate;” second, “whether Congress constitutionally could impose such a mandate;” and, third, “whether Congress statutorily did impose a mandate” in Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OLC Memo, p. 3 (emphases in original).
In Olmstead, a majority of five Justices held that the unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination based on disability under the ADA and Section 504. See 527 U.S. at 587, 600. Accordingly, the Court held, states must serve individuals with disabilities in the community “when the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.” Id. at 587. Notwithstanding contrary authority from every Court of Appeals to have considered this question, the OLC Memo opined that neither Olmstead, Title II of the ADA, nor Section 504 require States to provide disability services in integrated settings. OLC Memo, pp. 3, 22-23. OLC conceded that these conclusions were “out of step with the common understanding of [Olmstead] within the federal courts.” Id., p. 11.
The OLC Memo has been cited and relied upon by DOJ as the basis for moving to vacate regulations of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that incorporated Olmstead’s holding and required disability services to be provided in integrated settings. See Corrected Joint Mot. for Entry of Final J., Dkt. 124, p. 2, paras. 2-3, Texas v. Kennedy, No. 5:24-cv-225 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2026); see also Order and Final J., Dkt. 125 (Sept. 23, 2026) (entering judgment).
In reaching its conclusions, the OLC Memo expressly relied on memoranda and other documents provided by other DOJ components. On July 27, 2026, the Center for Public Representation (CPR) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking these memoranda and other documents. The government failed to make a determination regarding the FOIA request or to provide the requested records within the time permitted under FOIA.
On October 22, 2026, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP, representing the Center for Public Representation, filed a lawsuit asking the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to order the government to produce the documents.