“Cost-Saving Alone Is Not a Rational Basis” – First Circuit Denies Sovereign Immunity and Clarifies Equal Protection Limits on State Disability-Service Allocations

1. Introduction

McKenna v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services is a landmark 2025 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Two non-verbal brothers with autism and intellectual disabilities, Gaven and Jared McKenna, sued Maine’s Department of Health & Human Services (“the Department”) for cutting in half the publicly funded services they were entitled to receive simply because they lived together. After the district court dismissed the action on Eleventh Amendment grounds, the First Circuit reversed, holding that:

The Department’s “one-DSP-for-two” policy violated the brothers’ Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection because saving money, standing alone, is not a rational basis for discriminatory treatment.
Because the challenged conduct independently breached the Constitution, Congress’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity in Title II of the ADA is valid, and the Department may be sued for damages.

The ruling resets the constitutional line between permissible fiscal policy and arbitrary discrimination, and it expands the reach of Title II suits against state agencies in the First Circuit and potentially beyond.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Judge Montecalvo, joined by Judges Kayatta and Aframe) held:

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) clearly expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity (Kimel step 1).
Under United States v. Georgia, that abrogation is valid whenever the state’s conduct also violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Here, the Department’s policy fails even rational-basis review and violates Equal Protection (Kimel step 2; Georgia prong 2).
Because a constitutional violation exists, further inquiry under City of Boerne v. Flores was unnecessary.
The district court’s dismissal is reversed and the case remanded for merits proceedings and potential monetary relief for the period the brothers were under-funded.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Key Precedents Cited

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) – two-step test for congressional abrogation.
United States v. Georgia (2006) – ADA abrogation valid where the challenged conduct is itself unconstitutional.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) – Title II validly abrogates immunity in certain access-to-court contexts.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) – “congruence and proportionality” test for prophylactic legislation.
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985) – rational-basis review in disability equal-protection claims; rejects irrational stereotypes.
Lyng v. UAW (1988); Mathews v. Diaz (1976); Jefferson v. Hackney (1972) – cost-saving can be legitimate but cannot justify wholly irrational classification.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Uncontested “Abrogation Intent.” Title II’s text (“A State shall not be immune …”) satisfies Kimel step 1.
Georgia Framework Applied.
- Title II violation: Associational discrimination found because the brothers were penalised for living together.
- Equal-Protection analysis:
  - The Department gave two eligible individuals the resources for one, solely because they shared a household.
  - Government asserted only “cost-saving” as justification.
  - Court reiterated that while fiscal prudence is legitimate, a nexus between savings and the discriminatory line drawn must exist.
  - No rational link exists: 24-hour care needs double when two profoundly disabled adults are present; halving reimbursement is “wholly irrational.”
Result: Because the conduct violated Equal Protection, Congress’s abrogation of immunity is valid; the suit may proceed.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Sovereign-Immunity Landscape. Post-McKenna, state agencies in the First Circuit cannot invoke Eleventh-Amendment immunity to defend ADA Title II suits where plaintiffs can plausibly allege an equal-protection violation; litigation will likely focus on whether the challenged policy is “rational.”
Disability-Service Funding. States must ensure resource-allocation formulas bear a real connection to service needs, not mere budget trimming. Blanket “household” caps that ignore individual assessments are vulnerable.
Rational-Basis Doctrine Refined. McKenna underscores that cost-saving is not an automatic trump card; courts will examine whether the money-saving rule fits the asserted objective.
Associational-Disability Claims Strengthened. The opinion affirms that punishing individuals for their familial living choices can constitute disability-based associational discrimination under Title II.
Litigation Template. McKenna supplies a step-by-step roadmap for plaintiffs challenging state policies: plead a Title II violation + identify equal-protection flaw = pierce sovereign immunity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity – the constitutional rule that a state (or its “arm”) generally cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.
Abrogation – when Congress validly removes that immunity through legislation grounded in § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rational-Basis Review – the most deferential level of constitutional scrutiny: a law survives if any plausible reason supports the classification.
Title II of the ADA – prohibits public entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in services, programs, or activities.
Associational Discrimination – punishing a person because of their relationship with a disabled individual is itself disability discrimination.
Georgia Framework – a claim-by-claim test to see whether ADA abrogation applies: if the challenged conduct is unconstitutional, immunity is gone.

5. Conclusion

McKenna sets a powerful precedent: States cannot hide behind fiscal concerns to justify obviously unequal treatment of disabled individuals, and Title II provides a robust federal remedy, unimpeded by Eleventh-Amendment immunity, when such discrimination occurs. The ruling resonates beyond Maine, cautioning every state agency that disability-service budgets must be crafted on rational, individualized grounds, not blanket cost-cutting formulas. By anchoring the decision in core Equal Protection principles, the First Circuit strengthens the constitutional floor beneath the ADA and signals heightened judicial scrutiny of austerity measures that disproportionately burden people with disabilities.