The other day, I had a conversation with a friend about how much we (independently) enjoy being at "home." There is nothing unusual about our conversation. For most of us, home is a refuge - whether we live in a private home, a townhouse, condo or apartment. At the end of a difficult day or week at work, it is so rewarding to head home, to rest, relax and recharge engaged in whatever activity one wants - reading, watching television, reading blog posts or just hanging out.

My enjoyment of "home" has lost a little luster of late. Every time I think about how much I love my own home, I am sad for Stanley Ligas. Stanley Ligas is 41-years-old; he has a job, takes care of his own finances and he knows what he wants. Unfortunately, an antiquated system of providing services to those persons with developmentally disabilities in Illinois keeps Stanley trapped in a large institution - a "home" that he shares with nearly 100 other people.

A few years ago, the ACLU of Illinois, along with Equip for Equality, Access Living, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and the Chicago law firm Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal, brought a lawsuit on behalf of Stanley and several others, seeking to give each person with developmental disabilities in Illinois a choice about where they live - a choice that is guaranteed to them under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This right was further made clear 10 years ago, when the Supreme Court decided the case Olmstead v. L.C. In short, these individuals have a civil right to live in a setting that is the one they desire and the least segregated, rather than simply being bound to a large institution.

The lawsuit resulted in a landmark settlement with the State of Illinois. Under the agreement, we felt confident that Stanley - and thousands of folks like Stanley - soon would be able to make an informed choice about where they live. The agreement would have brought critical, systemic change to a flawed system that does not serve many individuals and their families.

After a fairness hearing to consider the agreement last week, a federal court rejected the settlement and decertified the class previously approved by the court. (I wrote a post to the blog after the fairness hearing. ) This was a great disappointment for the ACLU of Illinois and our coalition partners. But the judge did not dismiss the case and our work goes forward. Read more about the court's decision and our reaction.

In a few weeks, we will celebrate the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For all the progress that has been achieved under the ADA, it is sad that Illinois still ranks dead last when it comes to permitting persons with disabilities to live and interact in the community, rather than be stuck - like Stanley Ligas - in large institutions. It just doesn't seem fair and reminds us that we will not reach the real goal embodied in the ADA until those with disabilities are integrated fully into our communities.

This work makes me proud (again) to be part of the staff at the ACLU of Illinois. I am happy to have colleagues that work so hard for people like Stanley. Sometimes, the work here seems complicated - legalistic and complex. Not this case. Guys like Stanley just want the simple human dignity that comes from having a place of their own. I look forward to the day when we achieve that goal.

There are advantages to working for the ACLU of Illinois, advantages that often are manifest in the quiet courage and simple decency of the people that one meets. One such person is Stanley Ligas.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to spend the day in a federal courtroom, observing a "fairness hearing" examining an agreement that a group of plaintiffs -- represented by a number of public interest groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois -- have negotiated with the State of Illinois. At issue in the case is Illinois policy that forces persons with developmental disabilities to live in larger institutions when they would flourish better in smaller, community-based settings -- like a small group home or apartment.

The hearing was long, passionate, and (at times) chaotic. But, for me, the highlight came toward the end of the day, when Stanley Ligas and his fellow plaintiff David Ciccarelli got their chance to speak.

Stanley spoke about his desire to simply live on his own. He noted that he holds a job -- at Popeye's Chicken -- and how he balances his own checkbook. Despite the fact that he has asked repeatedly for the opportunity to live on his own, the State has denied him (and thousands of others) that opportunity, keeping Stanley housed in a large institution.

Stanley reminds me again the importance of our work to insure choice for those persons who are unnecessarily institutionalized. Yes, such institutionalization violates constitutional rights and federal law. But, in the end, it is a human story about people who just want to live in a place of their own, eat when they want and what they want, and make decisions about their own life. Sometimes it is just that simple.

One more personal note -- at the end of the long day (just after 6:00 p.m.) Stanley sister and his nephew approached my colleagues from the ACLU of Illinois to thank them for their work on behalf of Stanley. Watching that scene -- and the real appreciation they expressed -- reminds me of how inspiring simple human dignity can be. It also is a reminder of how fortunate I am to be working here at the ACLU of Illinois.