Barrick Gold Exploration, Inc. v. Hudson

concluding, pr e-Olmstead, that 28 § 35.130(d) had the force of law | requiring basic and ancillary services to be provided only in nursing home, rather than in recipient’s home | “Congress could not have intended to limit the [ADA’s] protections and prohibitions to circumstances involving deliberate discrimination.... Rather, the ADA attempts to eliminate the effects of ... benign neglect, apathy, and indifference.” | "Congress could not have intended to limit the [ADA's] protections and prohibitions to circumstances involving deliberate discrimination.... Rather, the ADA attempts to eliminate the effects of ... benign neglect, apathy, and indifference." | “Congress could not have intended to limit the [ADA’s] protections and prohibitions to circumstances involving deliberate discrimination. ... Rather, the ADA attempts to eliminate the effects of ... benign neglect, apathy, and indifference.” | “[I]f Congress were only concerned with disparate treatment of the disabled as compared to their nondisabled counterparts,” then the ADA’s reference to the persistence of discrimination in institutionalization would constitute a “non sequitur” | characterizing overall language in Tille II as “broad”