The court credited the assertion that has safeguards in place that will prevent any state’s “it plaintiff from being transferred to an at 874. Crucially, the court found that the Id. institution.” does not give a sufficient reason to think that these [safeguards] will This Id. “complaint fail.” language makes clear that the Seventh Circuit did not foreclose at-risk claims. Rather, in order to make out a claim under the integration mandate, an individual need not necessarily be institutionalized, but must give the fact-finder reason to that the actions “sufficient think” state’s could result in institutionalization. Because the plaintiffs did not connect the Id. Amundson actions to a cognizable harm (risk of institutionalization), the court dismissed their claims. state’s So, the Seventh in is not inconsistent with the decisions of the Amundson Circuit’s holding Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that at-risk claims are cognizable under the integration mandate. C. The Department of of the Integration Mandate Warrants Deference Justice’s Interpretation The views on Title II of the ADA 527 U.S. at Olmstead, Department’s “warrant respect,” 597-598. Further, its interpretation of its own regulation is unless plainly erroneous “controlling or inconsistent with the 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (citation and Auer v. Robbins, regulation,” internal quotation marks omitted); 135 S. Ct. 1199, n. 4 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, (2015) (Auer deference applies to of their own regulations unless agencies’ interpretations “the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the or not agency’s regulation” “does reflect the fair and agency’s considered judgment” (citations omitted)). The Statement provides that suing to prevent the harm of Olmstead Department’s unnecessary institutionalization or segregation is a cognizable claim under Title II, the integration mandate, and See DOJ Statement, Filing No. 145-7. Defendants turn the Olmstead. Olmstead Statement on its head by claiming that it supports their position that Olmstead Department’s claims must fail because they have not been institutionalized. Reply Supp. Plaintiffs’ Defs.’
The court credited the state’s assertion that “it has safeguards in place that will prevent any plaintiff from being transferred to an institution.” Id. at 874. Crucially, the court found that the “complaint does not give a sufficient reason to think that these [safeguards] will fail.” Id. This language makes clear that the Seventh Circuit did not foreclose at-risk claims. Rather, in order to make out a claim under the integration mandate, an individual need not necessarily be institutionalized, but must give the fact-finder “sufficient reason to think” that the state’s actions could result in institutionalization. Id. Because the Amundson plaintiffs did not connect the state’s actions to a cognizable harm (risk of institutionalization), the court dismissed their claims. So, the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Amundson is not inconsistent with the decisions of the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that at-risk claims are cognizable under the integration mandate. C. The Department of Justice’s Interpretation of the Integration Mandate Warrants Deference The Department’s views on Title II of the ADA “warrant respect,” Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 597-598. Further, its interpretation of its own regulation is “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,” Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199, n. 4 (2015) (Auer deference applies to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations unless “the agency’s interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation” or “does not reflect the agency’s fair and considered judgment” (citations omitted)). The Department’s Olmstead Statement provides that suing to prevent the harm of unnecessary institutionalization or segregation is a cognizable claim under Title II, the integration mandate, and Olmstead. See DOJ Olmstead Statement, Filing No. 145-7. Defendants turn the Department’s Olmstead Statement on its head by claiming that it supports their position that Plaintiffs’ claims must fail because they have not been institutionalized. Defs.’ Reply Supp.