Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
A resolution recognizing and honoring the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v L.C.
A Democratic resolution with 21 Democratic cosponsors · See all 22 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S3216-3217)
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
A Senate resolution is the Senate speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the Senate agrees to it, it is officially the Senate's word; it is not a law, so the House and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution recognizes and honors the 27th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. It highlights the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in protecting individuals with disabilities from unnecessary institutional segregation. The text salutes the expansion of home- and community-based long-term services and supports. It condemns a recent June 18, 2026, Department of Justice opinion that rejects the integration mandate. Furthermore, the resolution condemns recent and future cuts to the Medicaid program, including burdensome work-reporting requirements. Finally, it calls on the Department of Justice to rescind its opinion and urges Congress to reverse Medicaid cuts and increase funding for home- and community-based services.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +10
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The resolution is highly positive for this group as it defends their right to community integration and calls for increased service funding.
- Scored +9
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?
The resolution strongly affirms the integration mandate and opposes efforts to reverse the progress of individuals with disabilities.
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes?
The resolution calls on Congress to increase funding for home- and community-based services within Medicaid.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
The resolution salutes people whose efforts have contributed to the expansion of home- and community-based long-term services and supports for individuals with disabilities, as noted in resolved clause (2). This is positive because it honors the ongoing work to help individuals live outside of institutional settings.
-
The resolution affirms the vital importance of the Olmstead decision in ending unjustified institutionalization and segregation of individuals with disabilities, as stated in resolved clause (3). This is considered positive as it supports the right of individuals with disabilities to live in community-based settings.
-
The resolution calls on Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to increase funding for home- and community-based services, according to resolved clause (5)(B). This is a positive step that could bring more resources to people who need care in their homes and communities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
The resolution highlights that the Department of Justice issued a June 18, 2026, opinion that rejects the integration mandate and threatens progress towards full integration, as noted in the preamble. This is considered negative because it undermines the rights and hard-won progress of individuals with disabilities.
-
The resolution points out recent cuts to the Medicaid program, including the establishment of burdensome work-reporting requirements and other barriers that put the health of individuals with disabilities at risk, according to resolved clause (4)(B). This creates negative consequences and burdens by hindering progress and risking health.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The resolution is highly positive for this group as it defends their right to community integration and calls for increased service funding. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased Medicaid funding for community services would benefit low-income households relying on these services.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — The resolution calls on Congress to increase funding for home- and community-based services within Medicaid. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By advocating for increased community-based services and opposing Medicaid cuts, the resolution seeks to improve healthcare access for those with disabilities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The resolution strongly affirms the integration mandate and opposes efforts to reverse the progress of individuals with disabilities.
- 9/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- 6/24/2026
- Submitted in Senate
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S3216-3217)
- 14 Cosponsors added.
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Lisa Blunt RochesterDemocrat · Delaware
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Maggie HassanDemocrat · New Hampshire
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Charles SchumerDemocrat · New York
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts