Olmstead v. Zimring

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Beverly P. Downing (Atlanta, Georgia, argued the cause for the petitioners)
Michael H. Gottesman (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Irving L. Gornstein (Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
98-536
Petitioner: 
Olmstead
Respondent: 
Zimring
Opinion: 
527 U.S. 581 (1999)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Olmstead v. Zimring , 527 U.S. 581 (1999)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_536)
Facts of the Case: 

Jonathan Zimring, on the consolidated behalf of two mentally disabled female patients, challenged Tommy Olmstead, the Commissioner of Georgia's Department of Human Resources, for the Georgia Regional Hospital's (GRH) decision to keep the two women in psychiatric isolation. Zimring argued that under Title II of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the women had to be moved to the most communally integrated setting possible. Defending GRH's decision, Olmstead argued that although the women were medically cleared for a more integrated treatment setting, financial constraints and the need to fundamentally alter treatment programs prevented this from happening.

Question: 

Should financial constraints entirely determine whether states comply by the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines concerning community treatment programs for the mentally handicapped?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court began by noting that the question in this case was still ripe even though the two women at issue were placed in communal care since their controversies were initiated. The Court then found that the ADA required the placement of mentally disabled patients in "integrated settings" when they are medically cleared for such settings, they themselves express a desire for such settings, and the resources for such a transfer are available. The Court added that financial constraints might be significant if the state can show that allocation of resources to one patient will cause harm to others. The case was remanded for a better analysis of GRH spending priorities.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Zimring, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Thomas
Wrote the majority opinion
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg