Does that include Musk and his DOGE band of clowns ?

It does attempt to remove Section 504 by saying it is unconstitutional: https://dredf.org/protect-504/

Exactly, that’s exactly what I read too.

What umbrella in the government does 504 fall under? Civil Rights? Rehabilitation Act of 1973?

DEI also falls under Civil Rights?

Trumps plans for the Civil Rights Department?

The states are trying to get rid of the 504 first because its not racist and all parents with ” Exceptional ” children that require additional help will fight for.

Ill second someone else on this page, watch what they do not what they say.

Keep an eye on the bigger picture and next steps in the plan.

https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Plain-Language-Explainer_Texas-v-Becerra.pdf

“Count 3 Section 504 is Unconstitutional U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1.” Ctrl F that part. Here’s the exact legal language they are using to literally abolish 504s: Because the Act attaches its requirements universally—to all federal spending—it forces an impossible choice on the States, all of which must decide between implementing the Rehabilitation Act and accepting any amount of federal money. When spending “conditions take the form of threats to terminate other significant independent grants,” they “are properly viewed as a means of pressuring the State to accept policy changes.” Sebelius, 547 U.S. at 580. Section 504’s universal scope renders it an unconstitutionally coercive condition on federal spending. 239. Because Section 504 is coercive, untethered to the federal interest in disability, and unfairly retroactive, the Rehabilitation Act is not constitutional under the spending clause. 240. The constitutional violation posed by invalid spending legislation can be remedied by injunctive relief that precludes relevant federal officials from withdrawing funds for incompliance. Sebelius, 567 U.S. at 588.

https://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/240927-Complaint.pdf

Page 37 count 3 is where it seeks to get rid of section 504 altogether. I was shocked and literally read the whole document. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t misinterpreting it. I’m not sure what the state’s rational is other than saving money by not having to provide services for those with disabilities? It doesn’t make sense to me since it is a law going back to 1977. The updates under Biden I understand the lawsuit regardless of whether or not I agree. But for the rest I have no idea. Does anyone know of where the states have stated what their rational is for getting rid of the 504 protections altogether?

Sy- this is how I read it, too.