[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45287-45288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14566]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Clarification on Department of Justice Guidance Titled, 
``Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the 
Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act 
and Olmstead v. L.C.''

AGENCY: Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice; clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (the Department) is issuing this 
document to clarify that the guidance issued by the Department on June 
22, 2011, and last updated February 28, 2020, titled ``Statement of the 
Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of 
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C.'' 
(Olmstead Guidance), and similar guidance documents are not 
enforceable. In addition, the Department plans to revisit the Olmstead 
Guidance in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright 
Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024), to assess whether the 
Olmstead Guidance is consistent with the single best meaning of the 
relevant statutory text. The Department will not rely upon the Olmstead 
Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis E. Perez, Director, Disability 
Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, 202-320-6683.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 22, 2011, the Department issued a 
guidance document titled, ``Statement of the Department of Justice on 
Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C.'' \1\ The Olmstead Guidance 
states, ``To assist individuals in understanding their rights under 
Title II of the ADA and its integration mandate, and to assist state 
and local governments in complying with the ADA, the Department of 
Justice has created this technical assistance guide.'' It provides 
eighteen questions and answers regarding enforcement of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Dep't of Just., Statement of the Department of Justice 
on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C., ADA.gov (last 
updated Feb. 28, 2020), https://www.ada.gov/resources/olmstead-mandate-statement/ [https://perma.cc/65V6-QGXW].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Olmstead Guidance concludes: ``Guidance documents posted to 
this website are not intended to be a final agency action, have no 
legally binding effect, and have no force or effect of law. The 
documents may be rescinded or modified in the Department's complete 
discretion, in accordance with applicable laws. The Department's 
guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally 
enforceable responsibilities beyond what is required by the terms of 
the applicable statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedent.'' 
\2\ This is consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has held 
that guidance documents ``do not have the force and effect of law.'' 
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97 (2015) (quoting 
Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995)). Despite the 
non-enforceable nature of the Olmstead Guidance, numerous courts have 
treated the Olmstead Guidance as authoritative. See Davis v. Shah, 821 
F.3d 231, 263 (2d Cir. 2016); Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 322 (4th 
Cir. 2013); Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 979 F.3d 
426, 460-61 (6th Cir. 2020); Steimel v. Wernert, 823 F.3d 902, 914 (7th 
Cir.

[[Page 45288]]

2016); but see United States v. Mississippi, 82 F.4th 387, 393-94 (5th 
Cir. 2023). The Department is concerned about confusion over the non-
enforceable nature of the Olmstead Guidance and issues this 
clarification that the Olmstead Guidance is not enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See also U.S. Dep't of Just., Just. Manual Sec.  1-19.000 
(last updated Apr. 2022), https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-19000-limitation-issuance-guidance-documents-1 [https://perma.cc/E35H-F7FF].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Olmstead Guidance was issued prior to the Supreme 
Court's decision in Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 400, which held that 
agency interpretations must be consistent with the ``single, best 
meaning'' of the statute authorizing them. For these reasons, the 
Department plans to revisit the Olmstead Guidance in light of Loper 
Bright to determine whether the Olmstead Guidance is consistent with 
the ``single, best meaning'' of the ADA. The Department will not rely 
upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the ADA.

    Dated: July 13, 2026.
Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2026-14566 Filed 7-17-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-13-P