Structural Reform Litigation and the ADA
Samuel R. Bagenstos · University of Michigan Law School · 2009
Abstract
This article examines how structural reform litigation—court-supervised institutional reform—has been used to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The author analyzes the successes and limitations of consent decrees and court orders aimed at deinstitutionalizing individuals with disabilities and integrating them into community settings. The article argues that structural reform has achieved significant gains in disability rights but faces challenges including judicial reluctance to oversee institutional reform, political resistance to implementation, and the difficulty of measuring compliance with broad integration mandates.
Key Findings
- Olmstead litigation has been the primary vehicle for enforcing the ADA's integration mandate
- Structural reform decrees have achieved measurable progress in community integration
- Judicial monitoring is essential for sustained compliance but faces institutional resistance
- Budget constraints remain the most significant obstacle to full implementation of integration mandates
Related Statutes
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Related Cases
- Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)
- Halderman v. Pennhurst State School (1977)