I figured that whomever the squatter currently occupying the White House picked to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, be it Amy Coney Barrett or anyone else, it would be bad news for disabled folks.
It’s difficult to live with a disability in the United States without needing help from at least one of those programs, unless you’re really wealthy.
The squatter has an affinity for judges who are hostile toward ideals that shift the nation’s power dynamics beyond what they were in the 1940s. Replacing Ginsburg is his big chance to pour enough molasses into the gears of progress to gum them up for decades to come.
But that is not happening without a fight. More than fifty organizations that advocate for millions of Americans with disabilities of all ages sent a letter to Senators strongly opposing Barrett’s nomination. “We are deeply troubled about the impact that this nomination would have on people with disabilities,” the letter said.
The groups expressed deep concern that Barrett, based on her record, will vote to invalidate the Affordable Care Act in a case coming before the Supreme Court in November.
“The ACA has enabled millions of people with disabilities to obtain health care coverage and coverage of needed disability-related services including long-term care services,” the letter said. “Its protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, expansion of Medicaid, requirements for coverage of mental health services as well as habilitation services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, expansion of home and community-based service options, protections against disability discrimination, and expansion of the reach of mental health parity, have been essential to the health, independence, and self-sufficiency of Americans with disabilities of all ages.”
And that’s not the only gripe about Barrett. As the letter noted, the squatter’s administration last year tried to change immmigration policy to make it possible to deny green cards to immigrants deemed likely to someday need food stamps, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 public housing assistance, and certain other forms of subsidized housing.
It’s difficult to live with a disability in the United States without needing help from at least one of those programs, unless you’re really wealthy. So naturally, this change particularly stuck it to disabled people. When the change was challenged in court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the challenge and said it “disproportionately burdens disabled people.”
But Barrett dissented. “At bottom,” she wrote, “the plaintiffs’ objections reflect disagreement with this policy choice and even the statutory exclusion itself. Litigation is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”
Translation: If the government wants to deny you services, don’t come crying to the courts.
Another case that came before Barrett involved Wisconsin’s open-enrollment program, where a public-school student could apply to transfer from their resident school district to another district that has an available space for them. But when some special education students were denied transfers, parents sued, claiming that they were being denied equal education opportunities because of their disabilities.
But Barrett joined in the Appeals Court ruling against the parents: “Differential treatment of special-needs students doesn’t make the program unlawful.”
The letter to Senators from the more than fifty groups representing people with disabilities said, “This view of the law . . . would immunize many egregious practices that clearly discriminate.”
But like I said, I’m not surprised by any of this. I would expect such callousness from any judge who could capture the heart of the squatter.