HRES-1586-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
What it does
This non-binding House resolution would recognize and honor the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Olmstead v. L.C. decision, which held that states must offer qualified people with disabilities community-based services under the ADA. It would state the House's intent that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA mandate federally funded services in the most integrated setting appropriate. It would also call on federal, state, and local governments to advance policies for community living and work. It would create no legal duty, funding, or enforcement mechanism.
Who benefits
People with disabilities and their families who seek home- and community-based services, and advocacy groups that have pursued Olmstead enforcement, would gain a formal statement of House support. Home- and community-based service providers and disability employment programs may benefit indirectly if the statement influences later policy. The resolution itself changes no rights or funding.
Who is hurt
No group is directly harmed, since the resolution is non-binding. State Medicaid agencies and institutional care providers, such as nursing homes and psychiatric facilities, might face added pressure if the statement influences later legislation or litigation. Some states may view the call for policy changes as signaling future unfunded expectations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the resolution reaffirms a landmark ruling and the long-standing integration requirement in Section 504 and the ADA, giving Congress a clear voice on the issue. They contend that stating the House's intent helps guide courts and agencies, and that the call to expand community services and competitive employment reflects a goal that members of both parties have backed, as shown by its cosponsors.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the resolution is symbolic and does nothing to fund community services or reduce waiting lists for them. They contend that its statement of the House's intent about what the Rehabilitation Act and ADA mandate could be read as an attempt to shape judicial interpretation without passing a law, and that policy on service settings is better left to states.
Constitutional context
As a simple House resolution it is non-binding and raises no constitutional question beyond the House's authority to express its views. The underlying law rests on Congress's spending power and its enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) itself interpreted the ADA's integration requirement, subject to a state's fundamental-alteration defense.
Checks and balances
The House expresses a view without changing any branch's powers; because it is not a law, it does not bind the executive, states, or courts, which keep their roles in enforcing and interpreting the ADA and Section 504.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed commemorative resolutions marking anniversaries of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related disability-rights milestones.