Second Circuit: New York & Connecticut
Verified September 2026.
The Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont) demonstrates broad Olmstead enforcement, particularly focused on adult home segregation in New York City. Courts in this circuit recognize that congregate settings functioning as institutions violate the integration mandate, even when they appear community-based. The emphasis is on inadequate community alternatives as the core barrier to integration.
New York: United States v. New York (Eastern District)
Case Name: United States v. New York, 13-cv-4165 (E.D.N.Y.)
Case Resources:
- Google Scholar Case Law
- PACER Federal Court Records (13-cv-4165)
- DOJ Civil Rights Case Information
- New York Disability Advocates (P&A)
The Issue: The Department of Justice intervened to represent residents of 23 large adult homes in New York City and statewide, alleging unnecessary segregation of individuals with serious mental illness. The DOJ argued these congregate settings functioned as institutions despite appearing community-based.
Settlement: July 23, 2013 (amended 2014, 2017)
Requirements: The settlement required New York to:
- Transition individuals out of congregate adult homes into community housing with supports
- Expand community mental health service capacity
- Provide supported housing and services
- Monitor placement outcomes over a five-year period
Current Status: Ongoing implementation; federal monitoring continues. Individuals continue to transition from adult homes to community-based housing, though implementation has been slower than some federal orders require.
Significance: This case established that congregate settings in community-appearing locations can function as de facto institutions under Olmstead. The case has been active for over a decade and remains a touchstone for understanding institutional segregation in settings that don’t look institutional.
Connecticut: Connecticut Office of Protection & Advocacy v. State (District of Connecticut)
Case Name: Connecticut Office of Protection & Advocacy v. State of Connecticut, 3:06-cv-179 (D. Conn.)
Case Resources:
- Google Scholar Case Search
- PACER Federal Court Records (3:06-cv-179)
- Disability Rights Connecticut (DRCT – P&A)
The Issue: Nursing facility reliance for individuals with serious mental illness; insufficient community mental health services as an alternative to institutional placement.
Settlement & Status: Ongoing consent decree monitoring. Connecticut’s P&A system actively monitors community mental health service capacity and nursing facility placements.
Current Enforcement: The case continues to monitor Connecticut’s progress on expanding community-based mental health services and reducing unnecessary nursing facility placements. Community mental health service capacity and integration remains an active issue.
Second Circuit Enforcement Pattern
The Second Circuit stands out for recognizing institutional segregation in non-traditional settings. Courts have been willing to find that congregate adult homes and similar facilities violate Olmstead even when they operate outside state-run institutions. The emphasis on community alternatives and the breadth of what counts as “unnecessary segregation” makes this circuit relatively protective of integration rights.
Key Takeaway: In the Second Circuit, the existence of adequate community-based services and true choice about where to live are central to Olmstead compliance. Congregate settings are scrutinized regardless of their formal classification.