Section 504 Challenged: Texas v. Kennedy Update for September 2026
Written by DNWML Community Engagement Coordinator, Eliot Carter
This month, we will return to a topic from last year: the Supreme Court case about Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It is also related to June’s blog about the recent federal memo about Olmstead. We will connect all of this to housing to help get you excited for our Advocacy Summit in October on the subject of Affordable and Accessible Housing!
You can read last year’s blog post on Texas v. Kennedy to learn more about the court case we are discussing today by clicking here. This court case began in September of 2024 when Texas and 18 other states filed a lawsuit against the federal government. Specifically, they were challenging Section 504, the part of the Rehabilitation Act which says places that receive federal money cannot discriminate against people with disabilities. The case used to be called Texas v. Becerra, because it was filed against the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when Joe Biden was president, so it was named for Xavier Becerra, the former leader of the department. When Donald Trump took office and appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr to run the department, the case became known as Texas v. Kennedy. Around that time, the states involved in the lawsuit said they were not challenging Section 504 anymore, but now just the updates to Section 504 that were passed in 2024. These updates said states had to take specific steps to make sure people with disabilities that do not live in institutions are able to set their own goals, make choices about their life, and be involved in their communities. States would have to spend their own money to make sure these rules were followed.
More things have changed over the past year with this case. First, many states dropped out of the lawsuit. Only five of the original 18 states are involved now, thanks in part to the pressure that people with disabilities put on their state Attorneys General. Also, as we discussed in our June blog post, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released a controversial memo about the Olmstead Decision, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. The memo discusses the “integration mandate.” This is a way to describe the philosophy behind these landmark policy decisions – that state and federal governments should use their power to make sure people with disabilities are integrated into society as a matter of civil rights. The memo that the DOJ released on June 18th says that this administration doesn’t think the law officially requires states to do this. This didn’t reverse the Olmstead decision or make a new law. But at the very least, they showed that protecting people’s right to live in a community of their choice is not a priority for this DOJ.
The idea of the integration mandate shaped a lot of the updates to Section 504 that were approved by HHS in 2024. In addition to making sure people with disabilities should make their own choices when receiving Home and Community Based Services (HCBS), it also says they need to have the chance to work and socialize in the same places that people without disabilities can. In other words, if a person can only do activities in the place they live and can only talk to people that also live there, then that place is not really “community-based” and shouldn’t get HCBS money. The goal should be for people with disabilities to live in the “most integrated setting” possible, and state Medicaid offices should work to make non-integrated settings more integrated.
The DOJ, which is led by Todd Blanche, submitted a proposed resolution to Texas v. Kennedy. This resolution says that the case can end if the HHS removes the parts of the 2024 regulations that say that states need to make sure people receiving HCBS are in the “most integrated setting,” and they used their memo from June 18th as the main reason. When the lawsuit was first filed in 2024, the Executive Branch and the plaintiff states were on opposite sides of the issue. Now, the DOJ has come out in support of many of the plaintiffs’ arguments. Many disability rights organizations have condemned the proposed resolution.
In civics class, we are taught that the three branches of the US government each have a different role to play; the Legislative Branch (Congress) makes the laws, the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) interprets the laws, and the Executive Branch (the President and the departments like HHS and the DOJ) enforces the laws. The DOJ memo tries to re-interpret the Olmstead Decision and 50 years of disability policy, but the Supreme Court will have to decide if they also accept the argument they are making when they hear the Texas v. Kennedy case. If the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch both abandon disability integration and inclusion, then it is up to Congress to protect disability rights at the federal level. Luckily, this is the branch that most relies on winning elections and congresspeople to have public approval to keep their jobs. Each chamber of congress can pass a resolution that condemns the June 18th memo (S.Res.790 and H.Res.1469). They can also take actions that protect HCBS. The Latonya Reeves Freedom Act (S.4865 and H.R.9401) would put the right to receive care in the most integrated setting into law.
Centers for Independent Living like us emerged in the 1970s because people with disabilities knew we had to work together to fight for a world where we had the same rights and freedoms as people without disabilities. 50 years later, that fight is far from over. Even when we win rights with legislation like the ADA, that doesn’t guarantee that communities will be welcoming to us or that we can afford the food, housing, and care we need to thrive. Housing is made more difficult when someone needs a home without architectural barriers and/or access to public transit. This means the housing crisis is even more dire for people with disabilities, especially if they are low-income. Even when we win the right to receive home and community-based services, there needs to be accessible communities and homes for us to live in.
From the federal ROAD to Housing Act to the local Ann Arbor Comprehensive Land Use Plan, policymakers are attempting to fix some of the gaps in housing supply. If you want to explore how policy shapes development and how we can make our housing supply more accessible, then our fall Advocacy Summit is for you! Our 4th Annual Advocacy Summit will take place on October 16 from 2:00-4:30pm at the Ypsilanti District Library Whittaker branch meeting room (5577 Whittaker Road). This is a panel-style event featuring self-advocates, housing experts, and community organizers to discuss how policy can help address housing needs. A virtual option will be available as well. Please register at https://tinyurl.com/DNWMLSummit