Stein Joins Democratic Governors Opposing DOJ disability Policy Shift

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein has joined 17 other Democratic governors in challenging a major shift by the Trump administration over how federal disability law applies to people receiving state services.

At issue is whether federal law requires states, in certain circumstances, to provide services to people with disabilities in community settings instead of institutions.

All 18 governors who signed a Sept. 3 letter to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche are Democrats. Their letter describes the underlying principle of community integration as bipartisan, pointing to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which passed Congress with broad bipartisan support and was signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990. 

What changed?

The immediate dispute began on June 18, when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a new legal opinion concerning Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The office concluded that neither statute imposed what is known as an "integration mandate" on states and that neither statute authorizes federal agencies to impose such a mandate.

DOJ's lawyers also concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C. did not hold that those statutes themselves require states to treat people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. 

DOJ's reasoning focuses heavily on the text Congress enacted. Its legal opinion argues that receiving a government service in an institutional setting rather than a community setting does not, by itself, mean the person has been denied that service.

The department also notes that Congress expressly required integrated settings elsewhere in the ADA but did not put comparable language into Title II. DOJ argues that omission matters when determining what Congress intended the law to require. 

A month later, DOJ took another step. In a July 20 Federal Register notice, the department announced that it would no longer rely on its 2011 Olmstead guidance when enforcing Title II.

DOJ stressed that the guidance was never legally binding and said it would reconsider whether the document is consistent with the statutory text following the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which changed how courts evaluate federal agencies' interpretations of statutes.

"The Department is concerned about confusion over the nonenforceable nature of the Olmstead Guidance and issues this clarification that the Olmstead Guidance is not enforceable," the Federal Register notice said. "Further, the Olmstead Guidance was issued prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright...which held that agency interpretations must be consistent with the 'single, best meaning' of the statute authorizing them. For these reasons, the Department plans to revisit the Olmstead Guidance in light of Loper Bright to determine whether the Olmstead Guidance is consistent with the ‘single, best meaning’ of the ADA. The Department will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the ADA."

What do Stein and the governors object to?

The governors argue that DOJ's new interpretation threatens a federal framework states have relied on for decades to move people with disabilities away from unnecessary institutionalization and toward home- and community-based services.

They specifically object to any federal action that could weaken protections against unnecessary segregation or reduce what they view as the right of people with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate for them.

Their concern is practical as well as legal.

States have spent decades developing home- and community-based services, supportive housing, employment opportunities, education programs, and other systems designed to allow people with disabilities to live outside institutions when appropriate.

The governors say the federal shift creates uncertainty for those programs, the workers who provide them, and families who depend on them. They also raise the concern that some people could eventually face institutionalization when community-based services would otherwise be appropriate. 

"People with disabilities should have every opportunity to thrive within their communities. That's what our law requires, and it's the right thing to do," Stein said.

Stein accused DOJ of "creating uncertainty for people with disabilities and their families" and called on Blanche to follow longstanding Olmstead precedent and DOJ's previous guidance. 

What does Olmstead actually say?

The Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead ruling remains in place.

The case involved two women with disabilities who remained in a Georgia psychiatric institution even after professionals concluded they could appropriately receive treatment in community-based programs.

The federal government's position at the time was that states were required in certain circumstances to provide services in community settings rather than institutions. That obligation was not unlimited: considerations included whether community placement was appropriate and whether it would fundamentally alter the state's program.

That distinction is important to the current debate.

The Trump administration has not repealed the ADA or overturned Olmstead. Instead, DOJ is challenging the broader legal interpretation that developed around Olmstead and the federal government's authority to enforce an integration mandate based on Title II.

The Democratic governors argue that retreating from that interpretation risks reversing decades of progress toward community-based care.

DOJ argues that federal agencies cannot impose requirements beyond those authorized by the statutes Congress enacted.

That disagreement over the reach of federal disability law — and who has authority to define those requirements — is at the heart of the dispute.

Stein joined Democratic governors from Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin in signing the letter.