The Uncertain Future of Disability Rights: A Legal Challenge to Section 504 Threatens Educational Equity
For students with disabilities across the nation, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has been a vital lifeline, ensuring their right to an equitable education and protection from discrimination in federally funded institutions. This landmark law mandates that schools provide learning plans and accommodations to students with disabilities, allowing them to thrive alongside their non-disabled peers in integrated classrooms. However, a recent legal challenge led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is casting a shadow of uncertainty over the future of these essential protections.
Kaleigh Brendle, a Villanova University student with low vision, is a testament to the transformative power of Section 504. Growing up in New Jersey and now attending college in Pennsylvania, Brendle has relied on screen-reading technology and braille texts to access educational materials. The extended time she receives on exams, a direct result of her 504 plan, has enabled her to excel academically. "Without a screen reader and braille, I would not be able to have an equitable education," Brendle emphasizes. "Braille is the ultimate equalizer. It has allowed me to learn literacy and keep up with my peers."
Brendle’s story is not unique. Section 504 has provided crucial support to upwards of one million students with disabilities, enabling them to participate fully in traditional classrooms and achieve their academic potential. These 504 plans are designed for students who may not qualify for Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) but still require accommodations to succeed.
Now, the future of these vital accommodations is in jeopardy. In September 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, leading a coalition of 17 Republican state attorneys general, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of Section 504. The lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, targets a new rule finalized by the Biden administration’s Office of Civil Rights, which includes protections for people experiencing gender dysphoria and clarifies the requirement for states to provide accommodations in the "most integrated setting."
The attorneys general argue that Section 504, as it stands, is unconstitutional and seek a re-evaluation of the law in federal court. They are particularly focused on repealing the changes in the new regulations, arguing that the law places undue burdens on states and infringes upon their constitutional authority.
At the heart of the dispute is the concept of "integrated settings." Section 504 mandates that students with disabilities be educated alongside their non-disabled peers in traditional classrooms whenever possible. The alternative is an "institutionalized" or isolated setting, such as a separate classroom or school. Disability rights advocates argue that integrated settings are essential for fostering inclusion, promoting social interaction, and ensuring that students with disabilities have the same opportunities as their peers.
While the Republican state attorneys general have clarified that they do not seek to entirely overturn Section 504, their concerns about the way the law is enforced have raised alarm among disability advocates and parents. Shira Wakschlag, a senior director of legal advocacy at The Arc, a national non-profit organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, emphasizes that the lawsuit remains a serious threat because the original complaint arguing that Section 504 is unconstitutional is still before the judge.
Brendle expresses deep concern about the potential for students with disabilities to be segregated from their peers. "The 17 states said they’d never wanted to make all of 504 unconstitutional – even though that was written in their complaint," she points out. "They also said that the only aspects they want to repeal have to do with integration and protecting people from being placed in institutions. No disabled person should be forced to live in an institution."
Section 504 protects individuals with a wide range of disabilities, including physical impairments, learning disabilities, and mental health conditions. It guarantees a 504 plan for students who need one at federally funded schools, providing them with specific tools and support to learn effectively in integrated classrooms. These accommodations can range from noise-cancelling headphones to specialized desks to medical plans for students with allergies.
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the disabilities protected by Section 504. Jeffrey Katz, a clinical psychologist and co-chair of the public policy committee for the organization Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), notes that children with ADHD often require 504 plans to help them focus, manage their workload, and modify their behavior. "Most kids with ADHD need help with organization, management plans that help them with talking out or modifying their work because kids with ADHD have trouble persisting with effort," he explains. "All of these things can be done in a classroom."
The state attorneys general object to the inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under Section 504. Gender dysphoria is the distress a person can experience when their gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth. LGBTQ+ rights advocates argue that gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition that should be considered a disability under Section 504.
Furthermore, the states argue that the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution’s Spending Clause by imposing new requirements on federal grants for people with disabilities. They claim that the regulations are too restrictive and unconstitutional as applied.
Following criticism from disability rights advocates and parents, the state attorneys general have clarified that they do not seek to eliminate the law entirely but rather challenge the regulations as they stand. However, concerns remain about the potential impact of the lawsuit on the rights and protections of students with disabilities.
The lawsuit is currently before U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge James Wesley Hendrix. The states involved include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor has expressed concerns that the "integrated setting" requirement will increase costs for states and burden Medicaid providers. He argues that the new regulations jeopardize the viability of state programs and services and are impossible for states to fully comply with.
Carrie Gillispie, a senior policy analyst with the education policy program at New America, emphasizes that Section 504 goes beyond the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by specifically guaranteeing that people with disabilities have the tools they need to thrive in integrated settings in federally funded schools, workplaces, and other agencies.
Brendle fears that the potential weakening of Section 504 could lead to increased discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace. "This will touch millions of disabled children in some capacity," she warns.
The outcome of this legal challenge will have profound implications for the future of disability rights in the United States. The potential erosion of Section 504 could reverse decades of progress in ensuring equal opportunities and access for students with disabilities, jeopardizing their ability to thrive academically, socially, and professionally. The fight for inclusive education and equitable treatment for all individuals with disabilities is far from over.
