A Strict Constructionist Supreme Court and Olmstead

Val's Take

In the US Supreme Court's decision denying VETERAN'S DISABILITY BENEFITS due to late filing even under extremely compelling facts involving schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and tardive dyskinesia ---

• The Supreme Court may be signaling that they are not going to play favorites --- or they at least want to be perceived that way;
• "Dobbs" (the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade) was not an anomaly --
  
• and strict constructionist views (both Constitutional and Statutory) are going beyond "THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY."

I could be WRONG --- but I don't see the current Supreme Court overturning Olmstead. YET.

• BUT the little dance that advocates and states are required to do under OLMSTEAD is PROBLEMATIC.
• Further, it is NOT CLEAR what the current Court would do with current US Department of Justice Guidance on OLMSTEAD.

I think most everyone likes OLMSTEAD IN PRINCIPLE --- just ask STATE OFFICIALS ---

• BUT I think People with Disabilities Need MORE ACCESSIBLE ACCOUNTABILITY and
• STATES need MORE MONEY and TECHNICAL SUPPORT from the FEDS even as we're maintaining FLEXIBILITY.

Back in 1999 when Olmstead was decided --- I don't think people were necessarily ready to get rid of the Medicaid Rule Prohibiting Medicaid Funding of "Institutes of Mental Disease."

• BUT they also often hadn't been ready to acknowledge the numbers of people with brain injury, neuro-developmental disorders and psychiatric disorders in Jails and Prisons.
  • That has changed a lot, especially in the last 10 years.

Further, PERMANENT SCATTERED SITE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING is widely recognized as a VIABLE HOUSING & SERVICE MODEL for many people in a way that it wasn't 20 years ago even if some professionals knew about it.

SCOTUS’ First Decision of the Term Is a Unanimous Blow to Disabled Veterans (2023)

Why did the liberals co-sign Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s harsh opinion?

The Supreme Court's opinion in Arellano v. McDonough

What are some POTENTIAL OUTCOMES of INDIVIDUAL OLMSTEAD COMPLAINTS in the NEAR TERM?

• Making A Record
• Public Education
• CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

I think if the FEDS were to get rid of the IMD Rule -- they need to STATUTORILY require States to develop Comprehensive Plans of Care, Placement and Housing for People with Disabilities who are Institutionalized or at Risk of Unnecessary Institutionalization with:

• Measurable Goals
• Reasonable Time Frames
• and Funding to Support the Plan