Case: United States v. South Carolina

3:24-cv-07125 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: Dec. 9, 2024

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This federal law suit arose from a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into South Carolina's treatment of adults with serious mental illness (SMI). The investigation found that there was reasonable cause to believe that South Carolina violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide services to individuals with SMI in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The investigation called for collaboration with the state; however, the DOJ retai…

This federal law suit arose from a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into South Carolina's treatment of adults with serious mental illness (SMI). The investigation found that there was reasonable cause to believe that South Carolina violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide services to individuals with SMI in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The investigation called for collaboration with the state; however, the DOJ retained the right to initiate a lawsuit to ensure compliance with the ADA (for more details on the DOJ investigation, see “Detailed Summary of DOJ Investigation” below). 

On December 4, 2024, the DOJ filed suit against South Carolina in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in front of District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie. The DOJ alleged that South Carolina's programs violated Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12132–34), by administering its service system for individuals with SMI in a manner that failed to ensure that they receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Specifically, the complaint alleged that South Carolina’s program unnecessarily institutionalized adults with SMI in Community Residential Care Facilities (“CRCFs”) when more integrated and appropriate settings were available.

The DOJ sought a declaration that South Carolina violated Title II of the ADA, an affirmative injunction that South Carolina cease discriminating against adults with SMI, and an order for other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require. 

On January 3, 2025, South Carolina filed a motion to stay until March 21, 2025, to give the incoming Trump administration time to review this case and determine how to proceed. On January 15, 2025, the Judge denied the defendant's motion to stay, stating that South Carolina failed to show hardship if the action was not stayed.

On January 27, 2025, South Carolina filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that the United States lacks standing to sue as a Plaintiff under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II. 

As of January 31, 2025, the motion to dismiss is pending and the case is ongoing. 

Detailed Summary of DOJ Investigation:

On July 6, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division (DOJ) announced the conclusion of an investigation into South Carolina's CRCFs, a.k.a. "adult care homes." The DOJ concluded there was reasonable cause to believe that South Carolina violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide services to individuals with SMI in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, emphasizing the importance of living and receiving services within their communities, in line with the ADA's integration mandate.

After opening the investigation on January 12, 2022, the DOJ's review included document analysis, interviews with state officials and facility staff, and site visits to CRCFs. This process also involved discussions with individuals with SMI, shedding light on their desire for integration into the community and the barriers they faced in achieving this goal.

The DOJ's findings revealed that South Carolina heavily depended on CRCFs to house individuals with SMI, a practice leading to unnecessary institutionalization. These facilities, housing approximately 2000 people, limited residents' independence and integration into the community. The investigation uncovered that residents, some of whom had lived in such settings for up to 35 years, were deprived of choice and autonomy. Meals, activities, and interactions were strictly regimented, with minimal opportunities for engaging with the broader community. Despite the state's acknowledgment that people with SMI could thrive in more integrated settings with appropriate support, critical community-based services like Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and permanent supportive housing were either insufficiently available or entirely inaccessible to many in need.

The state's mental health system, designed to provide community-based services, fell short in practice. The mental health system, shared between the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Health and Human Services, showed significant gaps in providing for the needs of adults with SMI. While the state had established many necessary community-based services, the actual implementation and accessibility of these services did not meet the individuals' needs, contributing to the continued reliance on CRCFs for care. Critical services were unevenly distributed across the state, and efforts to connect individuals with necessary services to avoid CRCF placement or facilitate return to the community were lacking. 

Detailed accounts within the investigation underscore the lived experiences of residents, the systemic challenges they faced, and the potential for state reforms to foster greater independence and community integration for individuals with SMI. The investigation emphasized that South Carolina could feasibly adjust its existing programs to avoid the unnecessary segregation of adults with SMI in CRCFs, promoting living and thriving in community settings instead. In response to these findings, the DOJ outlined a series of remedial measures aimed at fostering greater community integration and independence for this population. The cornerstone of these recommendations was the expansion and accessibility of community-based services, including a statewide provision of ACT, peer support, supported employment, and other essential services, tailored to prevent unnecessary institutionalization and support independent living.Additionally, the DOJ stressed the critical need for South Carolina to enhance its integrated housing options, such as permanent supportive housing, to ensure individuals with SMI could live in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. The proposal advocated for substantial improvements in transition services from CRCFs to community settings. To prevent unnecessary admissions to CRCFs, the DOJ suggested implementing effective diversion strategies that connect individuals experiencing a mental health crisis directly to community-based services and supports, thus bypassing institutionalization.

 

Summary Authors

(3/31/2024)

Colton French (1/31/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69451652/parties/united-states-v-south-carolina-state-of/


Judge(s)

Currie, Cameron McGowan (South Carolina)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Sneed, Robert M (South Carolina)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Investigation of South Carolina's Use of Adult Care Homes to Serve Adults with Serious Mental Illness

DOJ Investigation of South Carolina’s Use of Adult Care Homes to Serve Adults with Serious Mental Illness

No Court

July 6, 2023

July 6, 2023

Findings Letter/Report

Findings Letter

DOJ Investigation of South Carolina’s Use of Adult Care Homes to Serve Adults with Serious Mental Illness

No Court

July 6, 2023

July 6, 2023

Findings Letter/Report
1

3:24-cv-07125

Complaint

United States of America v. South Carolina

Dec. 9, 2024

Dec. 9, 2024

Complaint
14

3:24-cv-07125

Order

Jan. 5, 2025

Jan. 5, 2025

Order/Opinion
15

3:24-cv-07125

Motion to Dismiss

Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69451652/united-states-v-south-carolina-state-of/

Last updated May 8, 2025, 1:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against South Carolina, State of (Filing fee waived) filed by United States of America. Service due by 3/10/2025(cbru, ) (Main Document 1 replaced on 12/10/2024) (cbru, ). (Entered: 12/10/2024)

Dec. 9, 2024

Dec. 9, 2024

Clearinghouse
3

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by United States of America.(cbru, ) (Entered: 12/10/2024)

Dec. 9, 2024

Dec. 9, 2024

PACER
4

Summons Issued as to South Carolina, State of (Attorney General). (Attachments: # 1 Governor)(cbru, ) (Entered: 12/10/2024)

Dec. 10, 2024

Dec. 10, 2024

PACER
5

Summons Returned Executed - Complaint Served

Dec. 10, 2024

Dec. 10, 2024

PACER
6

Extension of Time to File Answer

Dec. 12, 2024

Dec. 12, 2024

PACER
7

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories

Dec. 12, 2024

Dec. 12, 2024

PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Dec. 12, 2024

Dec. 12, 2024

PACER
9

Stay

Jan. 3, 2025

Jan. 3, 2025

PACER
10

Extension of Time to File Answer

Jan. 6, 2025

Jan. 6, 2025

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

Jan. 9, 2025

Jan. 9, 2025

PACER
12

Response in Opposition to Motion

Jan. 14, 2025

Jan. 14, 2025

PACER
13

Reply to Response to Motion

Jan. 15, 2025

Jan. 15, 2025

PACER
14

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer AND Order on Motion to Stay

Jan. 15, 2025

Jan. 15, 2025

PACER
15

Dismiss

Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

PACER
16

Scheduling Order

Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

PACER
17

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

PACER
18

Response in Opposition to Motion

Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

PACER
19

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

PACER
20

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Feb. 12, 2025

Feb. 12, 2025

PACER
21

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 13, 2025

Feb. 13, 2025

PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Feb. 13, 2025

Feb. 13, 2025

PACER
23

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 19, 2025

Feb. 19, 2025

PACER
24

Reply to Response to Motion

Feb. 21, 2025

Feb. 21, 2025

PACER
25

Stay

Feb. 25, 2025

Feb. 25, 2025

PACER

Order Staying Case AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

Feb. 26, 2025

Feb. 26, 2025

PACER
28

Order on Motion to Dismiss

April 1, 2025

April 1, 2025

PACER
29

Extension of Time to File Answer AND Miscellaneous Relief

April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

April 7, 2025

April 7, 2025

PACER
31

Withdraw as Attorney

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

PACER
33

Extension of Time AND Extension of Time to File Answer

May 7, 2025

May 7, 2025

PACER
35

Withdraw as Attorney

May 7, 2025

May 7, 2025

PACER
36

Withdraw as Attorney

May 7, 2025

May 7, 2025

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

May 7, 2025

May 7, 2025

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

May 7, 2025

May 7, 2025

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

Disability Rights

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 9, 2024

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Department of Justice, allegeing that South Carolina violated the ADA by overly relying on segregated facilities for adults with SMI.

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

The State of South Carolina, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Special Case Type(s):

Out-of-court

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Findings Letter/Report

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Government services

Housing

Disability and Disability Rights:

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Reasonable Modifications

Discrimination Area:

Accommodation / Leave

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified