The Olmstead Case

By Talley Wells

This year, we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's Olmstead decision. It is the most important civil rights decision for people with disabilities in our country's history.

The reaction was not celebration, however, when the Supreme Court decided to consider Olmstead . The Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear and traditionally only considers about 100 out of 7,000 such appeals. Most cases end at the lower appeals court.

"We were paralyzed with fear," said Sue Jamieson, who was the lead attorney in Olmstead . "We had won [at the appeals court] and we thought the Supreme Court, when they decided to take the case, might reverse it."
If the case had ended at the lower appeals court, the decision would have only had an impact on the three states governed by that appellate court— Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

But when the Supreme Court decided to consider the appeal, the decision would impact the entire country.
Olmstead began with just two women– Jamieson and Lois Curtis.

Jamieson was an attorney at the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, and she had dedicated her legal services career to representing men and women with disabilities who were stuck in institutions.

In fact, when she moved to Atlanta from Florida, she moved across the street from a mental health hospital. Even before taking the Georgia bar exam, she would take her two young children, her dog and wander
around the hospital. She would offer to advocate for the people stuck in the hospital.

She began to advocate in the mid-1990s for Lois Curtis, who was confined at Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta. Lois had been in and out of Georgia Regional over 20 times. Sue remembers swimming laps at the YMCA struggling with what she was going to do to help Curtis and being very frustrated with not having the right answer.

Returning to work, Jamieson conferred with other lawyers at the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, including Charlie Bliss and Steve Caley. Together, they decided to use the fairly new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to bring a lawsuit arguing that Curtis had a right to get the supports she needed in the community. The lawsuit would be modeled on a case called Helen L that had been successfully litigated in Pennsylvania.

The case was brought to the federal district court in Atlanta in 1995. The lawyers for Curtis argued that Georgia was discriminating against her under the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring her to be in an institution.The institution, they argued, was a segregated place because only people with disabilities lived there. Georgia responded that it was not discriminating against her, but was limited in what it could provide by inadequate funding.

While the lawsuit was still in the trial court, Elaine Wilson, who was also confined at Georgia Regional, joined the case. She too requested the chance to return to the community. Federal District Judge Marvin Shoob ruled in favor of Curtis and Wilson. The State appealed
to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, 26 states initially signed on to a brief with Georgia in support of the state's position that it should not be required to provide supports in the community.
Disability rights advocates pressured these states to change their minds. In the end, only seven states supported Georgia's position. Curtis, Wilson and their lawyers from Atlanta Legal Aid went to Washington, DC for the oral arguments. The case was argued on their
behalf by Michael Gottesman, a veteran Supreme Court advocate. A number of the Atlanta advocates were surprised by how small the courtroom was and how close to the Justices everyone sat. Both sides were peppered with questions during the argument.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced the decision of the Court on June 22, 1999.


A majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. They, and others with disabilities, had the right to receive supports in the community rather than in institutions when three conditions were met:

(1) the treating medical professionals determined that a community setting was appropriate;
(2) the person with a disability did not object to living in the community;
(3) the provision of services in the community was a reasonable accommodation.

The Court observed that when Congress passed the ADA, it declared that the law was "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." The Court decided that institutionalization was a form of discrimination. The Court also said that unnecessary isolation of people with disabilities is discrimination because many people will assume that people who are institutionalized are unable or unworthy of community life.

It was also discrimination because "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement and cultural enrichment."
The decision that Lois and Elaine could live in the community did not apply just to them. Since the decision came from the United States Supreme Court, the decision applied to thousands of people with disabilities across the country.

Each had a right to live in the community rather than an institution if the three conditions of Olmstead were met.

Atlanta Legal Aid lawyer Charlie Bliss remembers coming to fully appreciate the impact of the case when he saw Wilson a few years after Olmstead. She had undergone a remarkable transformation from a tense, stressed woman confined to an institution to a remarkable woman living a full life in the community.

The case, he concluded, was about "giving people a chance to live meaningful lives."

Tags: GCDD, Making a Difference, Olmstead