A high-stakes lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, is currently making its way through the courts, threatening crucial protections for people with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Seventeen states have challenged the federal government’s updated rules, putting at risk decades of legal safeguards that ensure accessibility in education, healthcare, and other public services.
In this case, a coalition of 17 states ( Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Flordia, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia) has sued the U.S. government, arguing that Section 504 is unconstitutional and should be eliminated. If successful, the lawsuit could dismantle essential protections that prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.
What is Section 504?
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, first implemented in 1977, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by entities that receive federal funding. The law mandates that schools, hospitals, and other federally funded institutions provide equal access and accommodations to disabled individuals. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently updated the rules under Section 504 in 2024, incorporating stronger protections based on extensive input from disability advocates.
These regulations require schools to provide appropriate support for students with disabilities, ensure that hospitals have sign language interpreters, mandate captioning for videos, and require accessible medical equipment for wheelchair users.
Why the Lawsuit Matters
The states behind Texas v. Becerra argue that the federal government overstepped its authority in implementing the updated Section 504 rules. However, rather than targeting specific provisions, the lawsuit seeks to dismantle Section 504 in its entirety. If successful, this case could strip away fundamental protections, making it easier for discrimination against disabled individuals to go unchallenged.
What Comes Next?
The legal process is already underway. By February 25, 2025, both the 17 states and the federal government will submit legal briefs outlining their positions. Other states that support Section 504 may also file documents in its defense. Disability advocacy organizations are expected to submit amicus briefs—legal arguments from non-parties explaining the broader implications of the case.
Once the court reviews all submitted documents, a ruling will be issued. The outcome will shape the future of disability rights and accessibility laws in the United States.
I opened the link to the lawsuit and it’s about abortion. It doesn’t say anything about the elimination of 504 plans. Did you link the wrong lawsuit? If it’s the right link, this article is very deceptive in my opinion. I looked up the lawsuit from other sources and nowhere does it say anything about 504 plans either. One litigation site said Texas v. Becerra was about the Affordable Care Act and gender affirming care. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information on this.
Julie,
We’re not sure, what you’re referring to, but the link is to this document. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/HHS%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20Complaint%20Filestamped.pdf
This link worked fine for me.
It does not link to abortion.
Go to the link below and read alllllll the way to page 42 and I think it was line d . It’s a long document so I can see where your confusion came from. For all others who don’t believe this article that is where you can find it!
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/HHS%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20Complaint%20Filestamped.pdf
I went to that same case when I searched “Texas v. Becerra”
https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Plain-Language-Explainer_Texas-v-Becerra.pdf
This article is not true at all. It does not aim to remove the 504 program all together. If you read the actual legal document it is attempting to remove the “final rule” that was added by the Biden administration stating that individuals with gender dysphoria are considered to have a disability. Which federal law explicitly excludes gender identity disorders that are not caused by physical impairments. But it is not about removing 504 completely, just that section that was put into the 504 rehabilitation act.
But it does. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/HHS%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20Complaint%20Filestamped.pdf
Where? I read it. I only see gender dysphoria.
Wow, hard to imagine conservatives focusing on a culture war issue while missing a dramatic attack on the rights of citizens happening right under their nose. I wonder if that will play out anywhere besides this blog post. Would be concerning.
Go to the prayer of relief
Go to the end of the case where it says “Demand For Relief” and section D is where they ask to declare 504 unconstitutional.
Sy- this is how I read it, too.
On page 42, the petition for relief specifically asks that the court finds Section 504 unconstitutional (see (d)). Further up in the document they outline two reasons why Section 504 is “unconstitutional”. If it’s unconstitutional, then Section 504 will be entirely removed.
It absolutely does, though it attempts to burry that fact deep. Read Count 3, “Section 504 is Unconstitutional”
Typical slimy politician tricks, 95% is about the Final Rule, and the wording of all but Count 3 is targeted completely on the Final Rule, as they know it is narrow enough they can convince many to agree or at least accept removal of the Final Rule, but if all counts are upheld – 503 in its entirety would be deemed unconstitutional.
Thank you!! The internet searches have the actual lawsuit buried deep so that you give up looking for it. According to the lawsuit itself, it’s only challenging the final rule or gender dysphoria being a disability.
I would suggest reading the actual legal document past the first couple of pages. Way down at the bottom it states “Count 3 Section 504 is Unconstitutional U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1.” You’ll find it around #221.
If they succeed in securing a ruling that Section 504 is unconstitutional, ALL protections and requirements under Section 504 will be lost.
Any students with a 504 plan will no longer have a legal right to accommodations in school.
“Gender dysphoria” is a distraction from the lawsuit’s much larger impact.
If you scroll down to page 42 in the Complaint, “Demand for Relief”, items d and e are:
“d. Declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional; ”
“e. Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing Section 504;”
So they’re absolutely trying to get all of Section 504 declared unconstitutional. And they won’t stop there. Their reasoning is that 504’s scope of “any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance” is too broad. Well if that’s too broad, then that endangers a LOT of civil rights and anti-discrimination protections. Like all of them. Title VI (race + origin), Title IX (sex), Section 504 (disability), the Age Discrimination Act. If the court strikes down all of 504, you can bet the rest will be close behind.
It’s trying to remove this section. Says nothing about transgender but guess using it to protect transgender.
a)Promulgation of rules and regulations
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under anyprogram or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.
(b)“Program or activity” defined
For the purposes of this section, the term “program or activity” means all of the operations of—
(1)
(A)a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B)the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;
(2)
(A)a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(B)a local educational agency (as defined in section 7801 of title 20), system of career and technical education, or other school system;
(3)
(A)an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(i)if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or
(ii)which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or
(B)the entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
(4)any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3);
any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.
(c)Significant structural alterations by small providers
Small providers are not required by subsection (a) to make significant structural alterations to their existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program accessibility, if alternative means of providing the services are available. The terms used in this subsection shall be construed with reference to the regulations existing on March 22, 1988.
(d)Standards used in determining violation of section
The standards used to determine whether this section has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination under this section shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.) and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510,[1] of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201–12204 and 12210), as such sections relate to employment.
(Pub. L. 93–112, title V, § 504, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 394; Pub. L. 95–602, title I, §§ 119, 122(d)(2), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2982, 2987; Pub. L. 99–506, title I, § 103(d)(2)(B), title X, § 1002(e)(4), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1810, 1844; Pub. L. 100–259, § 4, Mar. 22, 1988, 102 Stat. 29; Pub. L. 100–630, title II, § 206(d), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3312; Pub. L. 102–569, title I, § 102(p)(32), title V, § 506, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4360, 4428; Pub. L. 103–382, title III, § 394(i)(2), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4029; Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, § 408(a)(3), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1203; Pub. L. 107–110, title X, § 1076(u)(2), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2093; Pub. L. 113–128, title IV, § 456(c), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1675; Pub. L. 114–95, title IX, § 9215(mmm)(3), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2188.)
Read page 42!
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?
“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.
Exactly, that’s exactly what I read too.
Your link isn’t for Texas v Becerra. It leads to a reproduction rights case.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/HHS%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20Complaint%20Filestamped.pdf
Why would any civilised society do this?
That’s not what the complaint alleges. It is a narrow challenge to an administrative regulation that arguably exceeds what Congress (the only body permitted to pass laws) allows. Federal agencies are only permitted to promulgate regulations consistent with the content Congress wrote in the statute and within the scope of the power given to the federal agency. When the Ed Department promulgated regulations to include gender dysphoria as a protected category under 504, it arguably exceeded the scope of the statute and exceeded the power given to the department, by Congress, to promulgate regulations consistent with the Act. Only Congress has the power to make this change. Please don’t push agendas that aren’t true. Read the complaint.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/HHS%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20Complaint%20Filestamped.pdf
This is incorrect. Read page 37.
Attorneys frequently make the argument that the umbrella statute or Act is unconstitutional. If they don’t, they waive the ability to make any argument associated with it at all future time in the litigation. Importantly, however, the only way Congress can legislate certain subjects is through the spending clause. If Congress has not sufficiently funded 504, the statute is at risk of being unconstitutional, never mind that Congress enacted it 51 years ago. But the attorneys had to use a kitchen sink approach to ensure they preserve all possible arguments. Right now they are trying to survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Everybody needs to educate themselves about pleading rules and tactics. The point of this complaint — and the only portions a court will likely certify to move forward — is to gain an order that the Education Department acted beyond its authority. And that’s what we want, people. We don’t want unelected **executive** officials or agencies promulgating rules that go beyond what our elected officials (Congress) have authorized.
No: https://dredf.org/protect-504/
I’m a constitutional appellate lawyer. I don’t need AI to tell me what to understand. Further, I completely expect advocacy groups to analyze and portray this lawsuit in the way DREDF does: that’s why they are a disability advocacy group. Read the entire complaint. The 504 constitutional arguments are about anti-coercion and untethered spending power. The federal government ties ALL federal funding under the sun, and retroactively, to allegedly violations of 504 (it does this with numerous civil rights statutes). Plaintiffs argue that the overboard, sweeping removal of federal funding for violation of one statute is unconstitutional. Again, this is a tactic that constitutional attorneys make. I have not spoken with a single colleague who thinks that part of the pleading survives 12b6. Look through the procedural history of this lawsuit. It started with Texas, and then Montana, arguing that the Ed Dept reg was unconstitutional (it is ).
* alleged violations
* overbroad
(Fixing typos)
Listen, reach out to your governors” offices and AGs’ offices, absolutely. But I wouldn’t panic about a court overturning 504. Could it signal that the funding penalty provisions are arbitrary and capricious and require Congress to rework them? Maybe, but doubtful.
I’m a constitutional appellate lawyer. I don’t need AI to tell me what to understand. Further, I completely expect advocacy groups to analyze and portray this lawsuit in the way DREDF does: that’s why they are a disability advocacy group. And certainly people should lodge concerns with their state’s AG’s office. But the sky is not falling (at least not with expectations for this complaint). Read the entire complaint. The 504 constitutional arguments are about anti-coercion and untethered spending power. The federal government ties ALL federal funding under the sun, and retroactively, to alleged violations of 504 (it does this with numerous civil rights statutes). Plaintiffs argue that the overbroad, sweeping removal of federal funding for violation of one statute is unconstitutional. Again, this is a tactic that constitutional attorneys make. I have not spoken with a single colleague who thinks that part of the pleading survives 12b6. Look through the procedural history of this lawsuit. It started with Texas, and then Montana, arguing that the Ed Dept reg was unconstitutional (it is ).
Oh, cool. So we should totally trust that the attorney’s didn’t actually mean what they submitted to a federal court on a formal court filing, cause they totally wouldn’t *actually* eliminate the rights of all disabled students. Look at how respectful MAGA has always been to the disabled. Yeah, perhaps we should believe what they wrote.
And to your last sentence I have a two word reply: DOGE, Elon.
Does that include Musk and his DOGE band of clowns ?
Thank you for this explanation. They are clearly trying to remove gender dysphoria from the new ruling in 2024 to include it. People saying they want to remove 504 completely are jumping to an extreme conclusion. I really appreciate your input.
Read page 42
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.
It seems the pdf link has been removed or moved by Texas. May need to find another link or use something like the way back machine.
This article, along with just about all other coverage out there on this topic, conveniently omits the reason the 17 states are suing the government. Read the full complaint at the link. I’ll spell it out here copied directly from point No.1 in the lawsuit:
1. On May 9, 2024, the Biden Administration finalized a new rule that upends decades of established federal disability law by adding “gender dysphoria” to the definition of “disability” under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 40,066, 40,068–69 (May 9, 2024) (“Final Rule”). The Final Rule unlawfully changes the express terms of both Section 504 and the ADA, thereby exposing Texas, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia, and their agencies to the loss of federal funding.
https://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/240927-Complaint.pdf
“Gender Dysphoria” is a distraction to divide the strength and unity of the disability community.
Dig deep into the document, page 37, Count 3, starting at 221, there’s an entire section where the lawsuit seeks a ruling that the whole of Section 504 is “unconstitutional.”
Count 4, on page 40, further states that the “Final Rule is unconstitutional,” so they are being clear by adding Count 4, that Count 3 is ALL of Section 504.
So if you’re child is dependent on accommodations for a disability, and the court rules Section 504 unconstitutional, your child will no longer have a legal right to those accommodations.
Don’t let their usage of “gender dysphoria” distract you from the full impact of this lawsuit on your child.
Correct. Watch what they do, not what they say.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
a. Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing
the Final Rule;
b. Declare that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act;
c. Hold unlawful and set aside (i.e., vacate) the Final Rule;
d. Declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional;
e. Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing
Section 504;
f. Award attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action to Plaintiffs;
g. Issue any and all other relief to Plaintiffs the Court deems just and proper.
This will be a moot point if Trump gets rid of the Department of Education. That is where federal funding comes from. If there is no DOE there will be no money. Everything, including, financing goes back to the states. There may not be a lot of programs if/when that happens.
True dat
Here’s a news article quoting the Utah Attorney General concerning this lawsuit. I am reassured that my grandchildren with disabilities will continue receiving their accommodations.
https://www.ksl.com/article/51253834/i-hear-you-parents-utah-attorney-general-responds-to-concerns-over-section-504-lawsuit
It does attempt to remove Section 504 by saying it is unconstitutional: https://dredf.org/protect-504/
I don’t understand. My son has a 504 plan because of autism and ADHD. It will allow him more time for assessments/testing and gives information on how to approach/engage him with any issues. We don’t receive any tax benefits, funding, stamps.. absolutely no monetary funding or benefits are received in any way .. I have to pay for his therapy and use my employer insurance. I pay for everything. So how is a 504 plan affecting government spending?