The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Decision: Tuesday, June 22, 1999
Issues: Civil Rights, Rights of Handicapped

Advocates

Beverly P. Downing (Atlanta, Georgia, argued the cause for the petitioners)
Irving L. Gornstein (Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents)
Michael H. Gottesman (Argued the cause for the respondents)

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Full Opinion: Civil Rights, Rights of Handicapped: 6 - 3
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Ginsburg's opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority, authored a special concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority, joined Ginsburg's opinion
Souter
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's special concurrence
Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_536/>
(last visited ).