A Texas-led federal lawsuit could affect disability rights. Here’s why advocates are concerned

From KUT News:

Disability rights advocates are urging Texas to withdraw from a federal lawsuit they say could weaken the protections that allow disabled people to live in their communities instead of institutions.

The Texas-led lawsuit is questioning the constitutionality of the integration mandate — a requirement in the Americans with Disabilities Act that generally requires public entities to provide services to people with disabilities in the way least disruptive to their lives, according to Sabrina Gonzalez Saucedo, director of public policy and advocacy at The Arc of Texas, a disability rights advocacy group.

“[The integration mandate] means that people with disabilities should have the opportunity to live in the community and receive services in the community when appropriate, and not be unnecessarily separated or forced into institutions,” Gonzalez Saucedo said. “This is all about being in the least segregated environment.”

Disability rights advocates and politicians gathered at the Texas Capitol in July to denounce the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. ADAPT of Texas, a grassroots disability rights group, hosted the rally.

Attendees were encouraged to call Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to urge Texas to withdraw from the lawsuit. Paxton, who is the lead plaintiff in the case, did not respond to requests for comment.

Ron Cranston, a longtime ADAPT volunteer, became quadriplegic at 19 after a spinal cord injury. Now 70, he said he has watched disability rights ebb and flow over the decades and believes Texas v. Kennedy poses a serious threat to disabled people’s ability to remain in their homes and communities.

“Sometimes we are building the rights and the mechanisms through statute, through programs to make sure that we have our access, we have our support,” Cranston said. “Other times we’re just fighting to keep them, and we need to continue to be vigilant. … Things can change at a moment’s notice.”

Cranston said that living in his home allows him to maintain independence and family connections, something that would be difficult to preserve if he were placed in an institution. Being able to see his grandchildren regularly is one of the everyday freedoms he worries could be at risk, he said.

“I can go on and go to the store, or just stroll around the neighborhood with my wife, and I don’t have to go ask somebody to do that,” Cranston said. “It’s just a basic liberty that we have in living in our homes versus an institution.”

The multi-state lawsuit was originally filed in 2024 by Paxton and 16 other states to challenge a federal rule under the Rehabilitation Act issued by the Biden administration that updated regulations to include language recognizing gender dysphoria as a disability. However, in April 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services published a clarification, stating that gender dysphoria is not protected by Section 504, a civil rights law under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

“The states really had no purpose to continue with the lawsuit because what they were alleging was already addressed by the Department of Health and Human Services,” Gonzalez Saucedo said.

In January 2026, nine states, including Texas, filed a new complaint in the lawsuit, this time challenging the integration mandate. Since then, the majority of states have dropped their claims. As of late July, only Texas, Alaska, and Florida remain in the lawsuit.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said he dropped out of the suit after the clarification.

“Our goal in this lawsuit was to remove President Biden’s ridiculous addition of gender dysphoria as a disability, which risked jeopardizing services for those who truly need them most,” Rokita said in a statement. “While we remain concerned about federal overreach into traditional state matters, President Trump’s decisive action has resolved the gender dysphoria issue. With that core victory secured, we have dismissed our claims.”

The new complaint argues that HHS’ 2024 regulation implementing the integration mandate under Section 504 did not consider whether its requirements were “even achievable, or how much it might cost,” and that “for some individuals, placement in a community setting is inappropriate and will fail to meet their level of need.”

Veronica Ayala, a self-advocate with cerebral palsy and president-elect of Arc of Texas, said she was institutionalized in the 1970s — about 20 years before the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. Ayala said she was placed in a hospital near her family’s home, where she received care that could have been provided at home. But at the time, institutionalization was the only option.

“It’s all about being able to make your own choices,” Ayala said. “If you live in an institution, those rights are taken from you. You don’t get to decide who helps care for you. You don’t get to decide who comes into your space.”

Ayala said not being able to be with her family during the formative years of her life caused her to have unnecessary bonding and trust issues. She said she worries that is what is at stake for other disabled people if the lawsuit is successful.

“If you weaken 504, then you open the door for more civil rights to be weakened, whether it be for people with disabilities or anyone else of any other community, or minority,” Ayala said.

Steven Schwartz, special counsel for the Center for Public Representation, said advocates’ concerns have also been heightened by a recent opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The opinion argues that federal disability laws do not require states to provide services in the most integrated setting, which could complicate the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit, he said.

The lawsuit remains pending, with the federal government’s response due Aug. 31.

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.