11/12/2025
Time To Make A Change
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND FACTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff [Name] is a disabled adult who depends on Medicaid funded home-based services to remain in the community. Despite repeated, reasonable requests for accommodations — including a request to use a Special Needs Trust, to reallocate service funding toward housing, and to modify rigid income-based rental requirements — Defendant, through its Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS), refused to act. Instead, Defendant directed Plaintiff to “seek shelter placement,” ignored a court ordered plan for stable community housing, and failed to prevent repeated evictions. The result was homelessness, destabilized care, and imminent risk of institutionalization — a direct violation of federal disability law, state obligations under a binding Consent Decree, and constitutional principles of due process and equal protection.
This Court should grant relief: require Defendant to provide immediate assistance securing non institutional, community based housing; enforce reasonable accommodations (e.g., SNT use, rent income flexibility); and order systemic corrective action so that the rights of disabled persons under the law are honored, not ignored.
________________________________________
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Disability status and dependency on Medicaid services.
o Plaintiff receives Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Medicaid funded home health services under Illinois’ Home Services Program (HSP).
o Because of the structure of Illinois Medicaid and the HSP, Plaintiff cannot work enough to increase income without losing critical medical supports and home-based services.
2. Reasonable accommodations requested and denied.
o Plaintiff formally requested DRS to permit a Special Needs Trust (SNT) to manage financial resources compatibly with Medicaid and disability rules.
o Plaintiff requested that part of his HSP allocation be used to secure non-institutional housing to ensure stable community living.
o Plaintiff requested modification of standard income screening rules (such as “3× rent” requirements) to reflect disability-related income limitations.
o Defendant denied these requests without engaging in an interactive process as required by law.
3. March 2025 directive from DRS leadership.
o In March 2025, the Director of DRS sent an email to Plaintiff stating that he had “exhausted all resources of the Department of Rehabilitation Services” and should “look for shelter placement.”
o This directive effectively abandoned Plaintiff and shifted him toward homelessness or institutional risk despite his disability and need for home-based supports.
4. Probate court order for community housing and refusal by private landlord.
o During ongoing probate proceedings, Plaintiff was assigned a Temporary Guardian and a Guardian ad Litem. The probate court issued an order directing the guardian to secure private housing that would accommodate Plaintiff’s personal assistant living with him.
o The proposed plan included a 30% upfront lease payment and assignment of SSDI benefits to the Office of the Public Guardian to guarantee rent payment.
o A private apartment complex denied the application; Defendant (DRS) took no steps to enforce or support the court-ordered housing plan.
o As a result, Plaintiff was evicted twice during the guardianship case — despite court supervision, despite a viable and funded plan, despite legal protections.
5. Capacity finding does not eliminate functional disability.
o Later, the probate court found Plaintiff had full decision making capacity. But this capacity determination does not relieve Defendant of its obligations under federal disability law, nor negate the functional and systemic barriers created by disability, income limitations, and institutional bias.
6. Systemic context: history of over institutionalization and legal obligations under the Colbert settlement.
o In 2007, a class-action lawsuit Colbert v. Pritzker (originally Colbert v. Quinn) was brought on behalf of Medicaid eligible adults unnecessarily confined in nursing homes — individuals who, with appropriate community supports, could live in less restrictive, integrated settings. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse+2ACLU of Illinois+2
o In December 2011, this Court approved a binding Colbert Consent Decree, requiring the State to provide necessary supports and affordable housing assistance so class members can transition to community living. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse+2Illinois Department on Aging+2
o The Consent Decree remains binding, with periodic Implementation Plans. As recently as December 2024, Illinois submitted the FY 2025 Implementation Plan, reaffirming commitments to develop sufficient community-based housing and supports. Equip For Equality+1
o Nevertheless, as documented in the 2025 reporting from the Court Monitor, Illinois remains significantly out-of-compliance on dozens of key housing and service obligations — including failure to create adequate housing capacity and to implement a data-driven plan to close gaps. Illinois Department on Aging+1
7. Recent federal investigation (2025) into Illinois’ treatment of people with disabilities.
o In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opened a broad investigation into the State of Illinois to determine whether it continues to unnecessarily institutionalize, or place at serious risk of institutionalization, adults with disabilities — a clear acknowledgment that systemic failure persists. STLPR+2WGLT+2
o Among the institutions under investigation are state operated residential centers, raising serious concerns about neglect, abuse, and inadequate community-based alternatives. Shaw Local+1
These facts illustrate not a series of isolated errors, but a systemic pattern: refusal to accommodate individuals with disabilities, failure to honor legal obligations to provide community-based housing, and repeated denial of the basic human right to live safely and independently in the community.
________________________________________
III. LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. The Colbert Consent Decree — Binding Obligation for Community Integration
The Colbert Consent Decree requires the State of Illinois to provide “necessary and sufficient measures, services, supports and other resources, such as … locating affordable housing … to arrange for transition into Community Based Settings” for Medicaid eligible adults with disabilities who wish to leave institutional settings. Equip For Equality+2Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse+2
The Decree commits the State to create community-based service capacity, housing resources, and ongoing oversight. Illinois Department on Aging+2ACLU of Illinois+2
Failure to facilitate or support housing for eligible individuals violates the obligations set forth in the Consent Decree and undermines the protections intended to eliminate unnecessary institutionalization.
B. Federal Disability Law: ADA, Section 504, and the Right to Community-Based Services
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to afford persons with disabilities equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of community life.^1
The ADA and related law (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794) also obligate public entities receiving federal funds — such as DHS/DRS — to make reasonable accommodations, engage in an interactive process, and cannot impose arbitrary or inflexible policies (such as income thresholds) that disproportionately burden persons with disabilities.
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), states must provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to disabled individuals’ needs. Unjustified institutionalization, or failure to provide community-based options, constitutes discrimination under the ADA.
Because the Colbert Settlement, the ADA, and Section 504 operate concurrently, a disabled individual in Illinois should be able to access community-based housing — even when standard income requirements make that difficult — through reasonable accommodations, service reallocation, or trust-based financial planning.
^1 See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (modifications necessary to avoid discrimination), and case law interpreting the duty to modify policies to avoid disparate impact.
C. Systemic Failure and Ongoing Federal Scrutiny
Despite decades of litigation and the Colbert Consent Decree, Illinois continues to struggle to meet its obligations. The FY 2025 Implementation Plan, submitted December 2024, acknowledges continuing gaps in housing and service capacity. Equip For Equality+1
The U.S. Department of Justice’s 2025 investigation into Illinois’ treatment of people with disabilities underscores that these are not isolated compliance failures — but systemic, ongoing violations that threaten the rights, safety, and dignity of disabled adults across the state. STLPR+2Shaw Local+2
Thus, this case is not only about one individual's mistreatment — it implicates broader, structural violations that affect countless others and that run directly contrary to federal law and court approved settlements.
________________________________________
IV. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
1. Denial of reasonable accommodations.
o Defendant refused to allow use of a Special Needs Trust, to reallocate HSP funding, or to modify income-based housing rules, without engaging in the ADA required interactive process. This refusal constitutes unlawful discrimination under the ADA and Section 504.
2. Violation of the Colbert Consent Decree.
o The court-ordered housing plan, including use of SSDI for rent and shared housing with a personal assistant, satisfied the Decree’s requirement to facilitate community-based housing. The refusal of housing by the private landlord and inaction by Defendant amounts to a breach of the State’s obligations under the Consent Decree.
3. Unjustified push toward institutionalization.
o The March 2025 directive to “seek shelter placement,” combined with repeated evictions and loss of home-based services, put Plaintiff at immediate risk of institutionalization — in direct violation of Olmstead and the State’s duty to provide the most integrated setting appropriate.
4. Systemic disregard for disabled persons’ rights.
o The facts of this case mirror the systemic patterns described in the 2025 DOJ investigation, which documents institutional neglect, lack of adequate community-based housing, and failure to uphold civil rights guarantees for persons with disabilities. Granting relief here is not only just for the Plaintiff — it advances compliance with long-standing, court approved state obligations.
________________________________________
V. CONCLUSION & RELIEF REQUESTED
For the reasons above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Order Defendant to provide immediate assistance in securing non-institutional, community-based housing appropriate to Plaintiff’s disability — including reasonable accommodation of income limitations and use of a Special Needs Trust or other flexible funding mechanism.
2. Enjoin Defendant from applying rigid income-based rental screening policies (such as “3× rent” rules) without permitting accommodations or alternative verification for disabled, Medicaid dependent individuals.
3. Order Defendant to comply fully with the requirements of the Colbert Consent Decree — including actively assisting Plaintiff’s transition to community living, ensuring stability, and providing ongoing home-based support services.
4. Grant any additional relief necessary to protect Plaintiff’s civil rights under federal law and the Consent Decree, including oversight, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to prevent future violations.
Send a message to learn more
