WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate and House Democrats launched a congressional inquiry into a Justice Department legal opinion on Wednesday. The lawmakers are demanding the rescission of the guidance and transparency regarding its drafting process.

The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion in June regarding the institutionalization of people with mental illness. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion stated that states are not required by law to integrate mentally disabled patients with their peers by providing community or home-based care. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit authored the opinion.

The letter was sent to Acting Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and was signed by 100 Democratic members of the Senate and House. The letter asked the Justice Department to rescind the June opinion and asked who was involved in drafting the opinion. “For more than 50 years, federal civil rights laws have recognized that unnecessary segregation and institutionalization constitute discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote to Blanche. “The consequences of weakening the integration mandate would be profound,” the lawmakers wrote.

“Millions of Americans with disabilities rely on home and community-based services supporting them to be among their families, maintain employment, pursue education, and participate in civic life,” the lawmakers wrote. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren, and Chris Van Hollen signed the letter. Representatives Mary Gay Scanlon, Debbie Dingell, and Lateefah Simon signed the letter.

The Democratic lawmakers asked the Justice Department to identify all department officials, political appointees, and outside individuals who participated in initiating, drafting, reviewing, approving, or advising on the opinion. The Democratic lawmakers asked whether outside companies or groups provided any legal analysis or briefing materials that were reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in connection with the memo.

The Office of Legal Counsel opinion reinterprets the 1999 Supreme Court case Olmstead v. L.C. Olmstead v. L.C. held that people with disabilities are entitled to receive services in their communities rather than in an institution. The Olmstead case was brought by two women with mental and intellectual disabilities who were placed in institutions in Georgia.

The Office of Legal Counsel opinion is not legally binding and does not create precedent. Federal agencies such as the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services could use the opinion to guide how they enforce allegations of discrimination by patients who received state-funded care.

According to a report Law, the Office of Legal Counsel's legal opinion was largely driven by White House adviser Stephen Miller. Miller had expressed frustration over settlements the Civil Rights Division had reached which compelled states to release people with mental illnesses from institutions. The report stated that Miller felt those settlements would increase homelessness. The Justice Department denied Law that Miller had played any role in the memo.

In December, the Justice Department addressed state violations of the Olmstead ruling. Harmeet Dhillon announced a settlement with South Carolina late last year. “The Department and South Carolina are working together to ensure that people with serious mental illnesses can be served in the community when they want to be,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a news release.

The Justice Department confirmed it received the letter. The Justice Department said it is ensuring the appropriate personnel within the Department are reviewing the letter carefully. Democrats do not control the Senate or the House. Democrats may only request information from the Justice Department and cannot require a response under congressional subpoena.

The inquiry centers on a reinterpretation of federal civil rights protections that have guided disability care for decades. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion suggests that states have no legal obligation to provide community-based care, a stance that contradicts the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. Although the opinion is not legally binding, it serves as influential guidance for federal agencies enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

The Democrats' request for information shows concerns about the transparency of the legal drafting process and the potential influence of political advisers. With Democrats lacking the majority in either chamber of Congress, they cannot compel a response through subpoena power. The outcome of this inquiry depends on the Justice Department's willingness to cooperate with the request for rescission and disclosure of the memo's origins.