Skip to main content

Democrats probe DOJ opinion that eases institutionalization of mentally ill

Senate and House Democrats launched a congressional inquiry on Wednesday into a new controversial Justice Department legal opinion that would make it easier for states to keep people with mental illness institutionalized, rather than paying for them to receive community-based care.

In a letter to Acting Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the lawmakers asked the Justice Department to rescind the June opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, and asked who was involved in drafting it, in addition to its author, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit.

“For more than 50 years, federal civil rights laws have recognized that unnecessary segregation and institutionalization constitute discrimination,” they wrote to Blanche. 

“The consequences of weakening the integration mandate would be profound,” they continued. “Millions of Americans with disabilities rely on home and community-based services supporting them to be among their families, maintain employment, pursue education, and participate in civic life.”

The letter was signed by 100 Democratic members of the Senate and House, among them, Sens. Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen. Democratic Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, Debbie Dingell and Lateefah Simon also signed the letter.

The Office of Legal Counsel in June released a highly controversial legal opinion that civil rights experts told CBS News runs counter to longstanding legal precedent and would lead to greater rates of institutionalizing people with disabilities.

The OLC found that states are not actually required by law to integrate mentally disabled patients with their peers by providing community or home-based care.

The opinion effectively reinterprets a long-standing Supreme Court case that has served as a cornerstone of America’s disability rights law. That 1999 case, Olmstead v. L.C., held that people with disabilities are entitled to receive services in their communities, rather than in an institution.

The Olmstead case was brought by two women with mental and intellectual disabilities who were each repeatedly placed in institutions in Georgia because they could not obtain coverage for the support they needed to live independently at home.

Although the OLC opinion is not legally binding and does not create precedent, it could still be used by federal agencies such as the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services to guide how they enforce allegations of discrimination by patients who received state-funded care.

Bloomberg Law reported that the OLC’s legal opinion was largely driven by White House adviser Stephen Miller, who had expressed frustration over the settlements the Civil Rights Division had reached which compelled states to release people with mental illnesses from institutions. According to the report, Miller felt that these settlements would increase homelessness.

The White House and Justice Department, however, each denied to Bloomberg that Miller had played any role in the memo.

As recently as December, the Justice Department was addressing state violations of the Olmstead ruling. 

“The Department and South Carolina are working together to ensure that people with serious mental illnesses can be served in the community when they want to be,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a news release announcing a settlement with South Carolina late last year. 

In their letter, the Democratic lawmakers asked the Justice Department to “[i]dentify all department officials, political appointees, and outside individuals, including from the White House, who participated in initiating, drafting, reviewing, approving, or advising on the opinion.”

They also asked whether outside companies or groups, including some who advocate for criminalizing homeless people, provided any legal analysis or briefing materials that were reviewed by OLC in connection with the memo.

The Justice Department confirmed it received the letter and said it is “ensuring the appropriate personnel within the Department are reviewing it carefully.”

Because Democrats do not control the Senate or the House, they may only request the information — they cannot require a response under congressional subpoena from the Justice Department.

Trump needs to get tough on China to get tough on Iran’s economy. He’s been reluctant to do that

(CNN) — The Trump administration appears to have landed on a fallback strategy in the Iran war after military strikes and negotiations failed to deliver victory: threats of harsh economic sanctions.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called them the “toughest sanctions in history,” which will “collapse this regime.” He’s even called it an “economic D-Day” for Iran, comparing it to the historic invasion of Nazi-occupied France during World War II.There’s just one problem: Making good on those tough words requires not just getting tough on Iran, but also getting tough on China, which is Tehran’s No. 1 trading partner.And Trump and his administration have proved quite reluctant to do that.When Bessent rolled out the economic strategy Monday, he didn’t name specific countries that would be punished — or lay out timelines — if they don’t cut ties. And the announcement notably did not include secondary sanctions on the large Chinese banks that facilitate Beijing’s purchases from Iran.China buys as much as 90% of Iran’s oil. Economic analysts have told CNN that targeting these banks and Chinese companies would be crucial to exacting a major toll on Iran’s economy.But not for the first time in recent days, Bessent punted on exactly what would be done on that front. He suggested messages were being sent — saying “no one is above the reach of US sanctions” — but didn’t detail what will happen with China.“If they facilitate transactions and are part of the ecosystem that turns Iranian oil into money, into repression, they will be targeted,” Bessent said. “We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet diplomacy.”He added: “So when the hammer of US Treasury actions falls upon them, they will have no one to blame but themselves.”But you could be forgiven for thinking this might be lots of sound and fury signifying relatively little.That’s because not only has the administration regularly backed off the threats it’s made in the Iran war, but it has a track record of treading gently around China, whose leader, Xi Jinping, is set to visit the White House next month.While Trump has made a big show about getting tough on China over the years, he backed off his trade war with Beijing in October, agreeing to a one-year truce. That followed shortly after Beijing upped its leverage by restricting access to critical rare-earth minerals and halting purchases of American soybeans.Trump last year also ignored federal law to help save the Chinese-owned video app TikTok, despite his first administration having labeled it a grave national security threat because of its ability to spy on Americans.Fast forward to Trump’s visit to China in May, and rather than pressing Xi publicly on a potential invasion of Taiwan, Trump made some major Taiwan-related rhetorical concessions.He also backed off his previous promises to get China to free Jimmy Lai, a former Hong Kong media tycoon who criticized the Chinese Community Party, as well as to ban Beijing from buying American farmland and to “aggressively” revoke Chinese student visas.By July, Trump delivered a primetime address in which he claimed China effectively interfered in the 2020 US election (which is not what the evidence actually showed). But rather than punish China for this seemingly major purported provocation, Trump downplayed the need for retaliation.The president seemed to prefer to use China to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of stolen elections, without going to the trouble of holding the alleged thief accountable.And even in the context of the Iran war, Trump has been gentle with China.He has repeatedly shrugged off the idea that Beijing is helping Iran. And on his way back from China in May, he said he was considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil.Trump at the time was trying to secure a deal with Iran. But it’s telling that he’s been willing to telegraph potential carrots involving China, even as his administration is reluctant to publicly threaten to use the stick against it. In the latter case, it prefers “quiet diplomacy.”Also telling would seem to be Bessent’s comments Monday when CNN asked why the major secondary sanctions he previewed didn’t start immediately.“Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior,” he said. “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”The administration appears well aware that getting tough on Iran would entail going after China — a risk that it might decide isn’t worth it.There’s an argument to be made that these topics are best addressed next month, during Xi’s state visit to Washington.But such pomp and circumstance can drain Trump of his resolve to get tough (as seen during his May visit to China) — and that’s if he even wants to get tough on China right now.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story