The role of Federal courts in preserving the rights of Americans with disabilities

Friday, June 22, 2018 marks the 19th Anniversary of the US Supreme Court’s decision, Olmstead v. L.C. The Olmstead decision required states to eliminate the unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities and to ensure that they receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The federal court system has a rich history of issuing decisions that acknowledge and protect the most fundamental of rights for people with disabilities.

Even before the passage of the American with Disabilities act in 1990, the Federal Courts were intervening to preserve the rights of disabled Americans.  From the early 1960s-to early 1970s, there were at least 10 landmark cases that challenged the constitutionality of forced labor in State run institutions. Large numbers of patients were required to operate the facilities, which were focused on maintaining an unpaid unlimited workforce rather then providing treatment to our nation’s most vulnerable demographic. Dozens of attempts were made to prohibit this practice. The efforts became reality DC circuit ruled in Souder V Brennan that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to institutional workers.

Prior to the 1970s millions of children with special needs were either refused enrollment or inadequately served by the public schools but the Federal Courts decided in both Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, the courts decided that the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment gave parents specific rights that included prior notice, the right to discuss changes in their child’s education plan before those changes occurred, and the right to appeal decisions made by school districts. In both P.A.R.C. and Mills the judges struck down local laws that excluded children with disabilities from schools and established that children with disabilities have the same right to a public education as any other child.  Over the years the federal courts have continued to reinforce the fact that under the equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment, a public education is owed to ALL students.

The other issue that was tackled by the Federal Courts in the 1970s were the growing concerns with public institutions and the lack of services being provided behind their walls.  In 1970, the guardian of Ricky Wyatt filed suit against the State of Alabama over a failure to provide proper treatment at Partlow State Hospital. After a lengthy court battle, Federal district court judge Frank Johnson ruled that involuntarily committed patients “unquestionably have a constitutional right to receive such individual treatment as will give each of them a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his or her mental condition.” This court was the first to hold that there was a right to treatment for civilly committed patients. Subsequently Johnson ordered that the state must consider community resources must first be explored before admission to an institution was even considered. Judge Johnson issued a final order in 1972 that established standards for legally and medically adequate habilitation which offered protections that ensured humane and treatment orientated conditions.  Since the 1970s, Wyatt v. Stickney has become the model for cases challenging institutional conditions.

Minnesota also played a significant role in rethinking the standards for institutionalized care when the  US District court for the District of Minnesota  heard Welsch v. Likins in 1972. The  Court held that  due process requires that civil commitment for individuals with developmental disabilities be accompanied by minimally adequate treatment designed to give each committed person a reasonable opportunity to be cured or to improve his or her mental condition. This case was brought by Patricia Welsch, a resident of Cambridge State Hospital, against the state on behalf of all Minnesotans institutionalized against their will.  She argued that current treatment practices, such as seclusion, restraints, and excessive use of tranquillizing medication violated her constitutional right to due process under the law. The State of Minnesota argued that their obligations were custodial in nature and that neither the Constitution nor state law required any specific treatment. The court disagreed, holding that the court itself hada constitutional duty “to assure that every resident of Cambridge receives at least minimally adequate care”

The Federal Courts also ruled in 1977 that Americans with disabilities have a right to habilitation in Halderman v. Pennhurst. The Case began in 1974 when Terri Lee Halderman, a minor resident of  Pennhurst State Hospital in Pennsylvania brought a class action in the District Court on behalf of herself and all other Pennhurst residents against Pennhurst, its superintendent, and various other state officials responsible for the operation of Pennhurst, alleging that conditions at Pennhurst violated various state and federal Constitutional and statutory rights of the class members. Specifically, the lawsuit argued that these conditions denied the class members due process and equal protection of the law.

Ultimately, the district court awarded injunctive relief and ruled that certain rights of the patients had been violated. The court acknowledged that there is a federal constitutional right to be provided with “minimally adequate habilitation” in the “least restrictive environment,” regardless of whether the patients were voluntarily or involuntarily committed. They also cited the a constitutional right under the 8^th amendment to be free from harm and cruel and unusual punishment as well as a right to be be provided with “nondiscriminatory habilitation” under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th amendment. The District court issued an order that Pennhurst was to be closed and that “community living arrangements” be provided for all Pennhurst residents.

The State appealed to the third circuit which ultimately affirmed the ruling of the district court but not on the constitutional claims, rather they based their decision on an interpretation of the Developmental Disabilities assistance and Bill of Rights Act. The Third Circuit also affirmed the district court’s holding that Pennhurst residents have a state statutory right to adequate habilitation. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the decision due to the 11^th amendment principle that federal Courts can’t order state officials to comply with state laws but the facility was closed anyways as the result of a settlement agreement.

 Historically, the federal courts have played a pivotal role in guaranteeing the rights of Americans with disabilities and their decisions typically result in legislative changes, even paving the way for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which Congress ensured that individuals with disabilities are entitled to equitable opportunities for independent living, economic self-sufficiency and community engagement. The federal courts continue to play an important part in the future as we continue to look to them in both defining and defending the rights of people with disabilities.