17 States Sue To End Protections For Students With Special Needs
From Forbes.com
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in September of 1973. Section 504 of that act codified the civil rights of persons with disabilities. “No otherwise qualified individual” can be, simply because of their disability, “denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination" in any program or activity that receives federal funds.
That law has turned out to be hugely important in education, offering an even broader definition of students with special needs than the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Now sixteen states have joined Texas in a lawsuit asking the court to declare Section 504 unconstitutional.
On the surface, the lawsuit appears to be one more battle over the rights of transgender citizens. Under the Biden administration, the Section 504 definition of disability was expanded to recognize that “gender dysphoria . . . may be considered a physical or mental impairment.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration in September, 2024, saying that the Biden administration was “abusing executive action” to sidestep the law. The state was suing, he said, "because HHS has no authority to unilaterally rewrite statutory definitions and classify 'gender dysphoria' as a disability."
The suit spends over thirty pages attacking the addition of gender dysphoria to the Section 504 definition. It argues against the rule’s understanding of gender dysphoria. 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. It asserts many negative impacts for each of the states that have joined the suit, including, in many cases, challenges with Medicaid compliance.
Then, 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 therefor unconstitutional.
This is some bad stuff. Read the full article here.
Let’s be clear: This lawsuit is not just about gender dysphoria. That’s the smokescreen. The real move here—the truly dangerous move—is the attempt to gut Section 504 altogether. If these states get their way, we aren’t just talking about one group of students losing protections. We’re talking about dismantling decades of progress for every student with a disability.
And what do they plan to do with these students. In one way or another not giving them help will be detrimental to a classroom not designed for them. Do you try to force them to stay home despite them being entitled to an education? Do you force parents to pay for special schools—something few can afford? What is the practical game plan?