This week marked the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., which affirmed something that should never have been in question: people with disabilities are valued members of their communities, and unnecessarily segregating them into institutions is discrimination, plain and simple.

I wish I were writing to celebrate that anniversary. Instead, I am writing because it is under threat.

What the DOJ Just Said

Just days ago, the Department of Justice released a memo arguing that federal disability law does not require states to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate. That principle, the community-integration mandate, is the heart of Olmstead, and it has guided disability rights enforcement for decades.

The memo claims that neither Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act nor Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act created an integration mandate for states. It goes further, arguing that Olmstead itself did not hold that people with disabilities must be served in integrated community settings.

In plain English, that would hand the federal government a legal basis to argue that states have more discretion to place people in institutions rather than supporting them to live at home and in their communities.

Disability advocates see this for what it is: an attempt to weaken the right to live in the community and to narrow the legal force of Olmstead, even though federal courts have treated unnecessary institutionalization as discrimination for more than two decades.

Can Connecticut Protect Our Residents with Disabilities?

Yes, and that is the part I want every family in Ridgefield to hear.

Connecticut law already gives people with disabilities strong protections in employment, housing, public accommodations, schools, and state services. In some cases, our civil rights laws reach further than the federal ADA, and state agencies like the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) and Disability Rights Connecticut are here to enforce them.

That means Connecticut residents should remain protected even if federal policy shifts. But I will not pretend that protection is automatic. When Washington sends signals like this, it creates real uncertainty about community-based services, accessibility, and enforcement, and that uncertainty is its own kind of harm for families already fighting hard for the services they depend on.

How I Will Help

As your representative, my job is to make sure these protections hold up in practice, not just on paper. That means clearer state law, stronger enforcement, and better oversight, so people with disabilities can live, work, learn, and receive services in their community with dignity and independence.

Specifically, I will:

  • Review whether Connecticut should strengthen its community-integration and anti-discrimination statutes to make these protections more explicit and durable.
  • Push for better enforcement resources for CHRO, Disability Rights Connecticut, and the agencies that handle housing, education, transportation, and public-access complaints.
  • Advocate for stronger digital accessibility standards for state and municipal websites, forms, and services.
  • Support policies that expand home- and community-based care and reduce unnecessary institutionalization.
  • Work directly with advocates, families, providers, and people with disabilities to find the gaps and bring forward legislation that closes them.

The Bottom Line

Despite this latest move out of Washington, Connecticut already has strong disability protections, and I will fight to keep them that way. But because federal policy is creating new uncertainty, I will also work to strengthen our state law, improve enforcement, and defend the right of people with disabilities to live, work, and receive services in their own communities.

That right is not negotiable. Not here.