The recent DOJ filing is, unsurprisingly, part of a much larger end game. This ties into a previous filing on the books from Texas, with currently, about 8 other states attached. Several others have dropped out since initial filing after pushback. Keep the pressure on, raise your voice.
"Dismantling Disibility Protections : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION CASE NO. 5:24-CV-00225
https://dredf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/89.-Am.-Compl.-1.23.26-Access-Pass.pdf
States are currently bringing suits to overturn the long codified 504 law seemingly in it's entirety, including The Final Rule, while lying about their end goal and wrapping it into a more "selective" suit at the surface.
The Final Rule includes legislation that offers protections against unnecessary and forced institutionalization, state/federal takeover of custody of children from a struggling but competent or disabled parent, discrimination and offers the ability to sue for wrongful acts, contains requirements for accommodations, and houses within it the enforcement mechanisms for these protections.
"Attorneys general involved in the suit have argued that 504 plans are not at risk."...
"...on page 37, as it reached its third of four counts, the lawsuit switches gears, arguing not for an excision of the new language, but the elimination of Section 504 entirely. The suit argues that Section 504 is “coercive, untethered to the federal interest in disability, and unfairly retroactive” and therefore unconstitutional."
"...the language of the lawsuit is clear. The fourth item under “Demand for Relief” says “Declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional. ...followed by: “Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing Section 504.”"
"It argues against the characterization of Olmstead, a 1999 case that found persons with mental disabilities have the right to live outside of institutions. It argues that the new definition conflicts with the Americans with Disabilities Act."
*Title IX Rule (LGBTQ+ Protections): At least 15 states, led by Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, sued over a 2024 rule protecting LGBTQ+ students from bullying and misgendering, arguing it violates state authority and women's rights.
*HIPAA Reproductive Privacy: Texas and other states challenged a final rule protecting reproductive health information, with a 2025 ruling in Texas v. HHS vacating the rule based on concerns it interfered with state investigations.
*Section 504 (Disability Rights): As of January 2026, Texas and eight other states (including Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana) are challenging a Health and Human Services (HHS) rule strengthening the integration mandate for people with disabilities.
*Marketplace/Coverage Rules: States are challenging HHS and CMS rules deemed "arbitrary and capricious" that affect health insurance coverage, with some lawsuits focusing on the financial burden of compliance on states.
These legal battles represent a significant effort by states to dismantle federal regulations they consider overreaches of authority.
35. Defendants published the Final Rule to “amend[] [HHS’s] existing section 504 regulation on nondiscrimination obligations for recipients of Federal financial assistance.” 89 Fed. Reg. 40,066.
36. The Final Rule incorporates the enforcement mechanisms under Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., 89 Fed. Reg. at 40, 185 (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 84.16(b). In turn, Title I adopts the powers, remedies, and procedures of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4, et seq.
37. As a result, an aggrieved employee may file a charge with EEOC against his employer. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), 2000gg-2, 2000gg-4. The EEOC will then investigate the charges and seek a conciliation agreement. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (f); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-8; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-9. If no agreement is reached, EEOC will either bring a civil action against an employer or decline and issue a notice to the employee of his right to sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). In the case of a government employer, once conciliation fails, EEOC refers the case to the Attorney General who can bring suit or issue a right-to-sue notice to the employee. Id. Besides individual charges, the Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil action against an employer based on “a pattern or practice of resistance.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-6.
38. The Final Rule also applies to the child welfare system. The Final Rule specifically states that “[n]o qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any child welfare program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 40,188 (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 84.60(a)(1)).
39. According to the Final Rule, such discrimination includes(1) “[d]ecisions based on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations that a parent, caregiver, foster parent, or prospective parent, because of a disability, cannot safely care for a child;” and (2) “[d]ecisions based on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about a child with a disability.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 40,189 (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 84.60(a)(2)(i)–(ii)).
40. Further the Final Rule requires such a recipient—whether directly or through contracts, agreements, or other arrangements—to not (1) “[d]eny a qualified parent with a disability custody or control of, or visitation to, a child;”(2) “[d]eny a qualified parent with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from any and all services provided by a child welfare agency, including but not limited to, family preservation and reunification services equal to that afforded to persons without disabilities;” (3) “[t]erminate the parental rights or legal guardianship of a qualified individual with a disability;” (4) “[d]eny a qualified caregiver, foster parent, companion, or prospective parent with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from child welfare programs and activities;” or (5) “[r]equire children, on the basis on the disability, to be placed outside the family home through custody relinquishment, voluntary placement, or other forfeiture of parental rights in order to receive necessary services.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 40,189 (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 84.60(b)(1)–(5)).
stormborns
vaporwave
