After a Decade Institutionalized, Georgia Man Fears DOJ Memo Could Reverse Home-Care Rights

For the healthcare community, the DOJ’s new stance is not merely a legal dispute—it’s a direct threat to patient care. Home- and community-based services (HCBS) have been proven to improve quality of life, reduce costs compared to institutionalization, and allow individuals to live independently. The memo’s allowance for state budget constraints to justify isolation could trigger a wave of funding cuts, pushing vulnerable patients out of their homes and into costly nursing facilities, undoing years of person-centered care models.

A recently released legal opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is sending shockwaves through the disability rights community, particularly in Georgia, where the landmark Olmstead v. L.C. case originated. The June 18, 2026, memo, penned by OLC Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit, asserts that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) nor the Rehabilitation Act mandates an “integration mandate” that would compel states to prioritize home- and community-based services (HCBS) over institutionalization. This directly contradicts over two decades of federal court interpretations that have treated the 1999 Supreme Court ruling in Olmstead as requiring states to provide services in the least restrictive environment possible.

“

Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is sending shockwaves through the disability rights community, particularly in Georgia, where the landmark Olmstead v.

The Olmstead case itself was born in Georgia, where Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, confined to Georgia Regional Hospital, sued for the right to live in the community. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision held that unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the ADA. Since then, the Department of Justice—under administrations of both parties—has actively enforced this integration mandate, leading to numerous consent decrees and settlements that expanded HCBS. The new OLC opinion, however, argues that Olmstead only prohibits “unjustified” isolation and that states, not the federal government, get to define what counts as justification—including, pointedly, state budget constraints. This reinterpretation would fundamentally weaken the private right of action for individuals seeking to enforce deinstitutionalization, as the DOJ signals it will no longer treat unnecessary institutionalization as a per se violation of the ADA.

For Georgia, the potential fallout is acute. The state’s Medicaid program, like many others, relies on waivers to fund HCBS, allowing individuals with disabilities to receive in-home care rather than live in nursing facilities. Nick Papadopoulos, a 49-year-old Georgian, spent nearly a decade confined to a nursing home before a Medicaid waiver enabled him to move out, secure daily caregivers for bathing, dressing, and insulin management, and re-engage with his community. “It was like a horror movie,” Papadopoulos described of his institutionalization. His story mirrors thousands of other disabled Georgians who depend on HCBS—services that could be slashed if the state takes the memo’s guidance as a green light to reallocate funds toward institutional settings, which are often more expensive per capita but politically favored by nursing home lobbies.