Yesterday, I attended a Zoom meeting hosted by the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) that delved into the ongoing court case, Texas v. Beccera as it relates to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The meeting drew a substantial turnout, with a peak of 3,000 attendees. Unfortunately, many registered participants were unable to join due to the high number of attendees. DREDF will post the meeting recording its website for those who missed it.
The esteemed guest speakers who graced the occasion included:
- Claudia Center, American Civil Liberties Union
- Alison Barkoff, GW Professor and former US Department of Health and Human Services official
- Steven Schwarz, Director of the Center for Representation
- Howard Rosenblum, Chair of Deaf Equity
- Theo Braddy, Director of the National Council of Independent Living
- Chloe Rothschild, Board Member of the Arc of the United States
The meeting aimed to clarify the significance and scope of 504 protections. Initially, there was some confusion regarding the limited application of 504 protections to school services. Regarding the status of the case, it is still active and awaiting a status report due on February 25th.
The origin of the complaint sparked some discussion, leading to confusion about the ultimate objective of the suit. Yes, the case does mention “gender dysphoria.”
The most crucial takeaway is that the suit does intend to repeal the entirety of 504 protections. The meeting organizers request that we contact our state’s Attorney General to request a dismissal of the suit before the February 25th deadline for the report.
Case Summary
In September 2024, the State of Texas, along with 16 other states, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the case Texas v. Becerra. The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a pivotal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability in programs receiving
federal financial assistance. They argue that Section 504 and its updated regulations exceed federal authority and infringe upon states’ rights, thereby violating the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause.
The lawsuit specifically targets recent updates to Section 504 regulations, which include provisions that could extend protections to individuals with gender dysphoria and clarify the “integration mandate,” ensuring that people with disabilities receive services in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. The plaintiff states contend that these provisions
are unlawful and seek to have Section 504 and its regulations invalidated.
If successful, this legal challenge could dismantle longstanding protections for individuals with disabilities, affecting their rights in education, healthcare, and other areas. The case is ongoing, with significant implications for disability rights and federal civil rights enforcement.
Story by Nicole Grabner
