The U.S. Supreme Court case Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1980) revolved around the treatment of mentally disabled individuals at a state-run institution in Pennsylvania, known as Pennhurst State School and Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that conditions at the facility violated patients' constitutional rights, specifically their right to appropriate care and protection from harm under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They also claimed violations of federal statutory rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibits discrimination on basis disability by federally funded entities. However, in a controversial decision, the Supreme Court ruled that neither Constitution nor federal law required states to provide "appropriate" treatment for those with mental disabilities within state institutions like Pennhurst. It held that while Congress could regulate how federal funds were used by states through conditional spending power, it couldn't impose obligations on states beyond what was explicitly stated in legislation itself. This ruling led to criticism about its potential impact on protections for vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities but also sparked discussions about limits of congressional authority over state governments.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, Justice William Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 6010 of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. He argued that Congress intended to create enforceable rights under this act, as evidenced by its language stating that treatment should be provided "in accordance with" certain standards. Furthermore, he contended that these rights were not merely aspirational or hortatory but rather binding obligations on states accepting federal funds under this program. Brennan also criticized the majority’s reliance on legislative history in interpreting congressional intent while ignoring clear statutory text indicating otherwise. Additionally, he expressed concern about how this ruling could undermine other important civil rights laws if applied broadly beyond just disability policy.