Democrats probe DOJ opinion that eases institutionalization of mentally ill

Senate and House Democrats launched a congressional inquiry on Wednesday into a new controversial Justice Department legal opinion that would make it easier for states to keep people with mental illness institutionalized, rather than paying for them to receive community-based care.

In a letter to Acting Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the lawmakers asked the Justice Department to rescind the June opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, and asked who was involved in drafting it, in addition to its author, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit.

"For more than 50 years, federal civil rights laws have recognized that unnecessary segregation and institutionalization constitute discrimination," they wrote to Blanche.

"The consequences of weakening the integration mandate would be profound," they continued. "Millions of Americans with disabilities rely on home and community-based services supporting them to be among their families, maintain employment, pursue education, and participate in civic life."

The letter was signed by 100 Democratic members of the Senate and House, among them, Sens. Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen. Democratic Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, Debbie Dingell and Lateefah Simon also signed the letter.

The Office of Legal Counsel in June released a highly controversial legal opinion that civil rights experts told CBS News runs counter to longstanding legal precedent and would lead to greater rates of institutionalizing people with disabilities.

The OLC found that states are not actually required by law to integrate mentally disabled patients with their peers by providing community or home-based care.

The opinion effectively reinterprets a long-standing Supreme Court case that has served as a cornerstone of America's disability rights law. That 1999 case, Olmstead v. L.C., held that people with disabilities are entitled to receive services in their communities, rather than in an institution.

The Olmstead case was brought by two women with mental and intellectual disabilities who were each repeatedly placed in institutions in Georgia because they could not obtain coverage for the support they needed to live independently at home.

Although the OLC opinion is not legally binding and does not create precedent, it could still be used by federal agencies such as the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services to guide how they enforce allegations of discrimination by patients who received state-funded c