Olmstead challenged his conviction, claiming that the use of the wiretap evidence violated … Needlessly isolating such individuals, the Court wrote, is a form of discrimination based on disability—discrimination that perpetuates unwarranted assumptions about their capabilities and their worthiness to participate in community life.

However Chief Justice William Taft cited previous decisions which characterized the Fourth Amendment as only applying to physical search and seizure. Olmstead v. The Brandeis dissent was widely cited and came to prominence in later Supreme Court decisions. » The Olmstead CaseBazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Access resources from the Bazelon Center’s June 24, 2019 “, ADAPT and National Council on Independent Living, and TASH (PDF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (PDF), American Psychiatric Association and National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) (PDF), National Mental Health Consumers’ Self-Help Clearinghouse (PDF), American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) (PDF), Former State Commissioners and Directors of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (PDF), Former US Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and National Organization on Disability (PDF), Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, People First of Georgia, Autism National Committee, National Down Syndrome Congress, Vision for Equality (PDF), Last in Line: Barriers to Community Integration of Older Adults with Mental Illnesses… (2003) (PDF), Still Waiting…the Unfulfilled Promise of Olmstead (2009) (PDF), Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy: Olmstead at 10 (2009) (PDF).

The Supreme Court held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with mental disabilities have the right to live in the community rather than in institutions if, in the words of the opinion of the Court, "the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is n… Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness Digital Textbook, The Brandeis dissent was widely cited and came to prominence in later Supreme Court decisions.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services maintains a similar website. The right of people with developmental disabilities to live in the community was reinforced on June 22, 1999 in the landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Olmstead v. L.C. #620 Arlington, VA 22201, New! The right of people with developmental disabilities to live in the community was reinforced on June 22, 1999 in the landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Olmstead v. L.C. One is that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life.”[8] The other is that “confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.”[9], The majority opinion held that states are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when “reasonable assessments” of the state’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, and transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual. The 1927 case of Olmstead v. United States proved to be an incredibly important and influential decision.