In Youngberg v. Romeo (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court signaled a conservatism that has had widespread implications for justice policy in the care and treatment of the mentally disabled. Not only did "Youngberg" dispense with the doctrine of the "least intrusive means," the doctrine that determined whether hospital confinement was necessary to provide minimally adequate treatment, but it substituted deference to accepted professional judgment that carried with it the presumption of validity. A number of post- Youngberg courts have found support for the proposition that "there is no constitutional right to a least restrictive environment." Conversely, other post-Youngberg decisions have held that community-based treatment is "minimally adequate" and thus constitutionally required to protect the person's liberty interests. In these instances, however, professional consensus must assert that community-based care is appropriate and hospital confinement is not. This article critically examines the political philosophy of post- Youngberg decisions and presents a sociological analysis regarding a need for a right to community-based treatment for the mentally disabled. This issue is examined further by identifying the constitutional sources of that right. A critical theory of justice regarding the right to community- based treatment for the profoundly mentally disabled is presented as a supplemental source to that right. 114 footnotes