74 Am. U. L. Rev. F. 291 (2025).
Abstract
The United States harbors a shameful history of subjecting people with disabilities to stigma, mistreatment, and systemic institutionalization. Over the years, legislation was passed to address discrimination against individuals with disabilities—first, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—and later, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The landmark 1999 Supreme Court case Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring effectuated the aims of these Acts by holding that the unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities constituted impermissible discrimination under Title II.
Despite these strides, discrimination against people with disabilities persists. While perhaps not as blatant as the abuses of mass institutions or forced sterilization, how the government treats people with disabilities today still threatens to push them to the background of society, stripping them of their dignity and autonomy.
This Comment will trace the history of the United States’ treatment of people with disabilities through the lens of legislation meant to redress and prevent harm to that community. Next, this Comment will discuss how Olmstead established a well-reasoned precedent that forcing people with disabilities into institutions or keeping them there when they could otherwise live in the community constitutes discrimination.
This Comment argues that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Mississippi, which reversed a district court’s holding that Mississippi violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, was wrong. Furthermore, this Comment will demonstrate how the decision represents an abrupt deviation from Olmstead and the circuit cases relying on Olmstead, all of which recognized at-risk claims. This Comment ultimately asserts that United States v. Mississippi misinterpreted and misapplied Olmstead, and the case established a dangerous precedent of walking back the rights Congress intended to grant individuals with disabilities.
* Senior Forum Editor, American University Law Review, Volume 75; J.D. Candidate, May 2026, American University Washington College of Law; B.A., Psychology, 2021, Washington University in St. Louis. Thank you to my faculty advisor, Professor Marissa Ditkowsky, for her expertise and guidance throughout this entire process. I’d also like to thank the entire Law Review staff for their hard work and support on this piece, especially my Note and Comment Editor, Madison Roberts, and my Final and Technical Editors, Claire Rattan, Mary Reagan Phillips, and Lydia Losch.