More than 25 years after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with disabilities are still fighting for the right to live in the community instead of being unnecessarily stuck in institutions. In Brown v. D.C., that fight is playing out in the nation’s capital. In late 2024, a federal district court ruled that D.C. was failing people with physical disabilities living in nursing facilities by not giving them enough information about community options, not providing effective transition help, and not maintaining an effective Olmstead plan.

D.C. has now appealed, and The Arc recently filed an amicus brief urging the D.C. Circuit to uphold that ruling.

What is Brown v. D.C. and why does it matter?

This case is about whether D.C. is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) integration mandate by unnecessarily keeping people with physical disabilities in nursing facilities instead of helping them move into community-based living.

That matters because the Supreme Court made clear in Olmstead that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination. Federal disability law requires public systems to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to a person’s needs. In plain terms: if a person with a disability can live in the community with the right supports, the government cannot simply leave them in an institution because that’s easier or more familiar.

How did Brown v. D.C. reach this appeal?

This lawsuit began in 2010 when advocates sued D.C. for failing to help nursing facility residents with physical disabilities transition into the community. In 2014, the district court certified a class of people with physical disabilities receiving long-term care in nursing facilities who were eligible for community-based services, wanted to live in the community, and needed help from D.C. to get there. The case first went to trial in 2017, and the district court ruled in favor of D.C. Plaintiffs appealed, and in 2019 the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that the district court had used the wrong legal standard and sending the case back for another trial.

After that retrial, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs in December 2024. The court found that D.C. had failed to inform nursing facility residents about community-based options, failed to help them access the services and housing they needed to leave, and failed to maintain an effective Olmstead plan. D.C. appealed again, and that’s the case now before the D.C. Circuit.

What did the District Court find in Brown v. D.C.?

The district court’s 2024 ruling was a major win because it focused on concrete barriers that keep people trapped in nursing facilities.

The court found that D.C. wasn’t doing enough to tell residents they had options outside an institution. It also found that D.C. wasn’t providing effective transition assistance and was relying too heavily on nursing facilities themselves instead of taking responsibility as the government entity running the system. And it found that D.C. didn’t have an effective, working Olmstead plan for helping people move into the community

What is The Arc arguing in Brown v. D.C.?

The Arc and its co-amici argue that the district court got it right. The brief says D.C. is violating its integration obligations and that the remedy ordered by the district court is both appropriate and necessary. That includes requiring D.C. to provide meaningful information to people in nursing facilities, strengthen transition services, and build enough community-based long-term care and housing capacity so people can actually leave institutions.

The issue isn’t just whether people technically qualify for community living. It’s whether the system gives them a real path to get there.

Why The Arc supports strong community integration obligations

Although this case focuses on people with physical disabilities, the stakes are broader. When D.C. fails to maintain an effective Olmstead plan, that failure affects all people with disabilities who are unnecessarily segregated in institutions. A stronger system for helping people leave nursing facilities and move into the community would benefit many disabled people across the District, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The Arc strongly supports community-based services that allow people with IDD to live and thrive outside institutional settings. Our position statements on Long-Term Supports and Services and Human and Civil Rights make that clear: people with disabilities have a right to the supports they need to live in the community, those services must be delivered in the most integrated setting, and reliance on institutions cannot be a substitute for successful community living.

Why community integration matters for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

This case matters because the right to live in the community is bigger than any one disability group. When D.C. fails to help people leave nursing facilities, it strengthens a system that keeps disabled people segregated instead of supported.

That’s why this case matters for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, too. For decades, The Arc has fought for community living, not institutionalization. A strong ruling here would reinforce a simple but important principle: governments must do more than say community living is possible. They must provide the housing, services, and transition support that make it real.

Where can I learn more about Brown v. D.C.?

You can learn more on The Arc’s Brown v. D.C. resource page and from broader federal guidance on Olmstead and community integration.

Brown v. D.C. FAQ: Olmstead, Nursing Facilities, and Community Living

What is Brown v. D.C. about?

It is about whether D.C. is unlawfully keeping people with physical disabilities in nursing facilities instead of helping them move into the community.

What’s an Olmstead plan?

It’s a state or local government’s working plan for helping people with disabilities move from institutions into more integrated community settings, as required by federal disability law.

Why does this case matter beyond people with physical disabilities?

Because if D.C. isn’t meeting its community integration obligations, that can affect other people with disabilities too, including people with IDD who need services and supports to live in the community.