The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling in the case of Powers v. McDonough (Docket No. 24-6576) on September 11, 2026. The court's decision affects unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses, as it addresses their right to adequate housing on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) grounds. This ruling is crucial as it may set a precedent for how federal programs provide housing and support for disabled veterans.
The case originated when a group of plaintiffs, including Jeffrey Powers and others, filed a class-action lawsuit against several VA officials. They argued that the VA's failure to provide adequate housing for disabled veterans violated their rights under the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs contend that without proper housing, they cannot access the medical care and services they need. This case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an injunction requiring the VA to construct housing for the veterans.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act, particularly Section 504, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal assistance. The plaintiffs claimed that the lack of housing on the VA campus amounted to discrimination, as it hindered their access to necessary medical care. The case highlights the ongoing issues faced by homeless veterans in Los Angeles, a city with a significant population of unhoused individuals.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling upheld parts of the lower court's decision while also reversing and vacating other aspects. The court affirmed the district court's injunction requiring the VA to construct housing for the class members, stating, "The failure to provide adequate housing constitutes discrimination against disabled veterans under the Rehabilitation Act." The judges involved in this ruling included Consuelo M. Callahan, Roopali H. Desai, and Ana de Alba. The court emphasized that the VA must ensure that disabled veterans have access to housing to facilitate their access to medical care.
However, the ruling was not without dissent. Judge Collins, joined by several other judges, expressed concern that the panel's decision expands the scope of the Rehabilitation Act beyond its intended limits. Collins argued that the ruling could lead to unintended consequences, stating that the decision "disregards the limitations that the Supreme Court has placed on disability discrimination claims" under the Rehabilitation Act. The dissenting judges warned that the ruling could set a precedent that requires federal agencies to provide housing as a fundamental part of their services, which could overwhelm the system.
The impact of this ruling is significant for disabled veterans and could influence how federal programs address housing needs for vulnerable populations. The decision may encourage other groups facing similar challenges to pursue legal action for adequate housing and support. It also raises questions about the responsibilities of federal agencies in providing services to disabled individuals.
Moving forward, the ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court, particularly given the dissenting opinions that highlight potential legal conflicts. If the case is taken up by the highest court, it could lead to a landmark decision regarding the interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act and the obligations of federal agencies to provide housing for disabled individuals. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the rights of disabled veterans and the legal framework surrounding federal assistance programs.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or further actions the plaintiffs or defendants may take following this ruling. However, the legal landscape surrounding housing for disabled veterans is now more complex, and advocates will likely continue to monitor the situation closely.