latitude in analyzing the “comparative costs of treatment”: The State is entitled to wide discretion in adopting its own systems of cost analysis, and, if it chooses, to allocate health care resources based on fixed and overhead costs for whole institutions and programs. We must be cautious when we seek to infer specific rules limiting States’ choices when Congress has used only general language in the controlling statute. Id. at 615, 119 S.Ct. 2176 (Kennedy, J., concurring). D. Needs of Other Mentally Ill Persons Olmstead explains that the ADA does not compel states to provide relief where the requested relief would require the state to neglect the needs of other segments of the mentally disabled population who are not litigants before the court. Id. at 597, 119 S.Ct. 2176 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the plurality reasoned that a
holding that the fourteenth amendment due process clause requires states to provide civillycommitted persons with access to mental health treatment that gives them a realistic opportunity to be cured and released recognizing states need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities and the states obligation to administer services with an even hand holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states