A federal judge concluded the litigation known as Texas v. Kennedy last week by removing language from a Section 504 regulation that required states to prioritize community-based care over institutional settings for individuals with disabilities.
The ruling follows a legal challenge initiated in 2024 by 17 Republican-led states against the Biden administration. The original lawsuit contested the inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under federal civil rights law. Several states withdrew from the case after Donald Trump’s reelection, but a remaining group amended their complaint in January to ask the court to strike specific provisions.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services joined the conservative-led coalition at the end of August. The agency asked the court to eliminate regulatory language mandating community integration. A June memo from the administration argued that federal law does not compel states to provide community-based services for disabled residents.
States Cite Budget and Authority Concerns
Plaintiff states argued that updates to Section 504 during the previous administration restricted their spending authority and decision-making power. Officials cited strained budgets, rising costs, workforce shortages, and smaller Medicaid allocations as reasons for seeking regulatory flexibility.
Florida press secretary Jae Williams stated the state joined the lawsuit to serve as a check on federal power rather than to deny care. Sam Curtis, an information officer for the Alaska Department of Law, said the resolution preserves historical Section 504 protections while vacating provisions deemed unlawful.
Advocates Warn of Institutional Risk
Disability rights advocates expressed concern that the regulatory change could make it more difficult for individuals to receive services necessary to live in their communities. The ruling impacts the interpretation of Olmstead v. L.C., a 1999 Supreme Court decision establishing the civil right for people with disabilities to reside in community settings rather than institutions.
Charlotte Cravins, an attorney from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said the ruling affects children, adults, and elderly parents. Her son, Landry, was born with Down syndrome and impaired vision. He receives publicly funded therapies that have helped him learn to crawl, stand, and use American Sign Language while living at home.
Cravins is currently seeking nursing services and aids for daily living. She fears those supports may become unavailable under the new regulatory framework.
Federal Agencies Defend Action
The U.S. Department of Justice stated that the court’s order answered an ordinary-course request and clarified the scope of Olmstead v. L.C.. HHS maintained it remains committed to protecting the civil rights of individuals with disabilities and enforcing applicable law.