Earlier this month, we shared with you that Lois Curtis died. Lois was diagnosed with schizophrenia and a developmental disability and spent most of the first part of her life in a Georgia state institution. She wanted to live in the community and took her battle to the United States Supreme Court—and WON in 1999. This lawsuit is often called “Olmstead” after the name of the mental health commissioner in Georgia at that time.
Lois never gave up or stopped being positive. She lived a meaningful life in the community after she won her lawsuit. In her own words, this is what living in the community meant to Lois, “Well, I make grits, eggs, and sausage in the morning and sweep the floor. I go out to eat sometimes. I take art classes. I draw pretty pictures and make money. I go out of town and sell me artwork. I go to church and pray to the Lord. I raise my voice high! In the summer I go to the pool and put my feet in the water. Maybe I’ll learn to swim someday. I been fishing. I seen a pig and a horse on a farm. I buy clothes and shoes. I have birthday parties. They a lot of fun. I’m not afraid of big dogs no more. I feel good about myself. My life a better life.”
Because Lois never gave up, mental health systems across the country changed, and thousands of people now have the opportunity to live and work in the community.
For over ten years, the State of Mississippi has battled a lawsuit born out of Lois’s willingness to stand up for the fundamental right to live in the community. The State’s attorneys have gone to great lengths to characterize this lawsuit as federal overreach with unreasonable and unmeasurable requirements. They also argue that in Mississippi, people with mental illness can already live in the community if they want and that Lois’s case meant that the State only had to offer the services, not make sure they worked for people.
The State’s arguments are baffling. You can read for yourself what the lawsuit demands. The remedial order requires the state mental health system to ensure the services it says it already offers are available statewide. It lists specific numbers for some services. It requires the Department of Mental Health (DMH) to monitor the implementation and delivery of these services, which state law and the DMH’s existing standards already require. It orders the DMH to develop fidelity scales consistent with national best practices and to track if services help people live in the community. It appoints a monitor to oversee these activities because the U.S. repeatedly showed at trial that what DMH reported on paper was different than what people experience when they seek help.
Recent legislative hearings make it clear that Mississippians with mental illness cannot always live in the community and, with alarming frequency, end up in jail simply because they need treatment. Interestingly, one of the terms of the remedial order would likely help address this issue:
13. Diversion from State Hospitals. During the pre-evaluation screening process, CMHCs will determine if a person meets the criteria for intensive community services — specifically, PACT, ICORT, or ICSS, as applicable — in accordance with DMH Operational Standards and arrange those services if appropriate, to the individual. During the pre-evaluation screening process, CMHCs will consider all persons who are civilly committed in their Region for Crisis Residential Services In lieu of State Hospital placement, except when a chancery court has ordered the person to be committed to a
State Hospital.
We encourage the legislative committee members to examine if pre-evaluation screenings are being maximized to help people stay in the community. We also encourage them to look into whether the community mental health centers have the support they need to complete these screenings and if the DMH standards need to be updated to help the CMHCs carry out pre-commitment screenings in this manner.
Lois’s words describing life in the community are both simple and profound. They shouldn’t be hard for anyone, including the state’s attorneys, to understand. The Olmstead ruling was about people with disabilities being able to live, work and be with their family and friends in the community. It was not about simply checking off a list of services the state says it offers. To reduce the Olmstead case to a checklist of services is an insult—and a disservice—to Lois and the many other Americans with disabilities now living in the community as a result of Lois’s courage and perseverance.
One of the most disturbing recent arguments in Mississippi’s lawsuit is the State’s argument that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot bring Olmstead cases against states. Instead, individuals with disabilities would have to do so and find attorneys to represent them. It is improbable that individuals would have the knowledge, time and resources to pursue these claims so states would not be held accountable for violating the rights of people with disabilities. This is particularly concerning because most issues with civil rights have historically involved federal support. To cut off access to federal intervention hearkens back to Mississippi’s difficult history with civil rights.
Depending on how the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on recent arguments, much of what Lois Curtis fought for could be undone. The Americans with Disabilities Act, a law that protects thousands of Americans with disabilities and ensures their access to reasonable accommodations, could be dealt a severe blow because of Mississippi’s Olmstead case. We hope that doesn’t happen, but we wanted to make you aware it could. We will share the Fifth Circuit’s ruling when it’s published.
