The judges appear willing to end oversight of the mental health system


NEW ORLEANS — Their questions during oral arguments on Wednesday suggested that a panel of federal judges would be willing to overturn a court-ordered treatment plan and monitor oversight of the Mississippi mental health system.

The judges also asked the parties to the state’s mental health lawsuit to clarify whether the Department of Justice could directly prosecute states for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) — an issue that neither party raised in their private submissions to the court. This points to the potential interest of judges in issuing an inclusive ruling that could limit the enforcement of the PWD Act across the country.

Scott Stewart, the Mississippi attorney general, argued in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the state had already met the “objective criteria” for expanding community mental health services. He said the Justice Department has exaggerated not only the Mississippi case but similar lawsuits across the country.

Anna Marks Baldwin, a representative for the Department of Justice, said it was not yet clear if Mississippi had made access to community services for people with serious mental illness.

The oral arguments were the latest turning point in a case that has been going on since 2011. That year, the Ministry of Justice Tell the state he was violating ADA by unnecessarily hospitalizing people with serious mental illness. In 2016, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves found Mississippi to be in violation of the ADA, approved a remedial order to expand community services, and appointed a special monitor to oversee compliance. Mississippi appealed his ruling to the Fifth Circuit last year.

According to evidence presented by the Department of Justice at the trial, for years prior to the lawsuit, Mississippi provided community services “on paper,” but usage rates were very low and services were unavailable in many counties. In appointing the observer, Reeves said it was important to verify the state’s claims.

Judge Edith Jones questioned the appointment of a special observer, who was Compile reports twice a year Evaluation of community services in Mississippi, after the state said it had already made the necessary changes.

“How did the court have the power to issue an ongoing injunction?” Baldwin asked.

Baldwin responded that the injunction ensured compliance over time.

“But that’s not how the courts work,” Jones said. “You don’t say, ‘Oh yeah, I thought of eight or nine things that you need to do, and by the way, you have to pay for the screen forever,’” without any restrictions whatsoever on what he says.

Stewart told the committee that the Justice Department lacks the authority to sue Mississippi at all under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires state and local governments to provide equal services to people with disabilities. Although the law does not explicitly state that the attorney general can bring a case against local governments, the department has taken legal action under the law since it came into force in 1992. Instead, Stewart said, a case must be brought on behalf of certain individuals who allegedly They were discriminated against.

Baldwin replied that Congress clearly intended the Department of Justice to be able to sue to enforce Title II provisions.

The question of the Department of Justice’s authority to sue states directly was not raised by either party in their submission to the Court. Instead, the justices sent a request to the parties asking them to respond, indicating their potential interest in a more comprehensive ruling.

Justice James C. Ho noted that if the commission sided with Stewart, it would lead to a split with the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected the same argument made by the state of Florida.

Stewart replied, “You can create a division in the circle, but I think this is one of those cases where it is justified.” “I really think that’s important.”

Florida appealed to the Supreme Court, which recently declined to hear the case. But a division of the circuit would increase the likelihood that the country’s highest court will hear the case.

A finding that the Department of Justice cannot sue states under Title II will have consequences The main effects of implementing the disability law In the United States, as federal lawsuits or the threat of federal legal action have prompted state and local governments to make changes such as installing ramps in courts and wheelchair lifts on public buses.

Director of Mental Health Wendy Bailey attended the arguments in New Orleans.

The panel — made up of Jones, he, and Justice Leslie Southwick, all Republican appointees — sits on what is considered the most conservative court of appeals in the country.

During the Obama administration, the Department of Justice participated in 50 cases similar to the lawsuit against Mississippi, with the goal of forcing states to ensure that people with disabilities are able to live in their communities, rather than being institutionalized. These are known as the Olmsted cases, after a Supreme Court decision that found unnecessary institutionalization to be a form of discrimination against PWD.

Baldwin provided some of the evidence the Department of Justice presented for trial in 2019. A clinical review of a representative sample of people who were hospitalized in Mississippi found that of the 154 people interviewed, all could have avoided or spent less time in the state. According to the Justice Department memo “if they are provided reasonable community services.”

Stewart noted that most of the people in the sample were not hospitalized at the time of the interview. He said the Department of Justice’s claim that people with mental illness are “at risk” of unnecessary hospitalization in Mississippi lacked objectivity.

“If someone is in the community now, the regulation is satisfied,” he said of Olmsted’s merger mandate.

“People with serious mental illness are, unfortunately, almost always, by definition, at risk of being institutionalized,” he continued. “This is the nature of this very difficult disease.”

Seated in the audience, Joy Hogg, executive director of the nonprofit Family As Allies, which advocates for children with behavioral health challenges, was alarmed by the claim.

“That was really scary for me, because he would have thought about that about fellow citizens who might have had a mental illness,” she said. “We’re all human first. The fact that he’s making that assumption, it’s almost as if he crossed out a whole bunch of people…”Well, they could end up in the state hospital anyway.”

Because Mississippians with mental illness frequently move in and out of state psychiatric hospitals, Baldwin said, it’s not speculative to realize that people who were recently hospitalized may end up again.

“That they remain at risk of future institutionalization is not speculative future harm,” she said. “Just because the United States is not suing exactly these individuals in a representative capacity, it is saying, ‘The damage has been done … and will continue to do so, in the absence of the state’ [expanding community services]. “

Jones also seemed skeptical of the Department of Justice’s record of suing states.

“I know the Department of Justice has sued Florida and Georgia,” she said. “Maybe sue Alabama because it is right next door to Mississippi. When are you going to sue Texas?”

Baldwin responded that the Department of Justice’s authority to bring a Title II lawsuit is “well established.”

Fifth Circuit website says court It aims to express opinions Within 60 days of oral arguments.







We want to hear from you!

By listening with greater interest and understanding the people who make up Mississippi communities, our reporters put a human face on how politics affects the daily population of Mississippi. We listen closely to our readers to help us continue to align our work with the needs and priorities of people from across Mississippi. Please take a few minutes to tell us what’s on your mind by clicking the button below.

CC license

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *