For Immediate Release, September 23, 2026
Contact: Jess Davidson, [email protected]; 202-975-0960
WASHINGTON, DC — In a major development concerning federal civil rights and health policy, a federal judge in the case Texas v. Kennedy has officially vacated the community integration requirements established under the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 2024 Section 504 rule. The resolution that was approved by the presiding judge was originally proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of HHS, alongside a coalition of states including Texas, Florida, Alaska, Louisiana, and Montana. With the approval of this resolution, the legal proceedings have officially concluded, leaving the case closed. However, the decision has drawn immediate and fierce condemnation from disability rights advocates, most notably the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), which has expressed its strong and unequivocal opposition to the judge’s decision to eliminate these crucial community integration requirements.
The legal battle surrounding the 2024 Section 504 rule has been closely watched by legal scholars, healthcare providers, and advocacy organizations across the United States. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a landmark civil rights law designed to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Over the decades, the interpretation and enforcement of Section 504 have evolved to address systemic barriers faced by people with disabilities, particularly regarding institutional bias—the historical tendency of public systems to fund institutional care over home- and community-based services. The 2024 rule issued by HHS was intended to provide clearer, more robust directives to ensure that federally funded health and social service programs actively support disabled individuals in integrated community settings rather than segregating them in institutional facilities.
Despite the setback represented by the recent ruling, legal analysts and advocacy groups emphasize that this development does not dismantle the broader framework of disability rights law in the United States. Crucially, this ruling does not take away longstanding protections against forcing disabled individuals into institutions. The judicial decision affects only specific provisions of the 2024 rule. Fundamental statutes such as Section 504 itself, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the historic Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. remain entirely intact and fully in effect. Furthermore, the presiding judge made no finding that Section 504 or the overarching right to community integration is unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.
The impact of the court’s decision extends far beyond the borders of the states that originally brought the lawsuit. Because the ruling vacates the specific integration mandates contained within the federal regulation, the decision to remove these requirements applies universally to all states, rather than being limited only to Texas, Florida, Alaska, Louisiana, and Montana. The provisions that have now been removed explicitly articulated that health and social services funded by the federal government should facilitate and support disabled people living and participating in community settings whenever appropriate. The elimination of these explicit regulatory directives is viewed by advocates as a serious and damaging setback to the ongoing pursuit of equality and self-determination for people with disabilities. The core philosophy championed by the disability community is that disabled individuals should never be forced to enter an institution simply to secure the medical, personal care, or social services they require to live fulfilling lives.
Reacting to the conclusion of the case and the subsequent removal of the mandates, leadership at the American Association of People with Disabilities voiced deep concern while simultaneously reaffirming the resilience of the broader movement. Maria Town, President and CEO of the AAPD, addressed the gravity of the judicial outcome while contextualizing it within the broader history of disability advocacy.
"The judge’s decision to eliminate these requirements is a rollback of the right to community integration, but it is not a complete rollback of disability rights. Every disabled person deserves to receive care in the most integrated setting so that they maintain autonomy, agency, and self-direction," said Maria Town, President and CEO of AAPD.
Town further emphasized that the struggle for true equality and community integration is a historical continuum that has been shaped by the tireless efforts of multiple generations of activists. The conclusion of Texas v. Kennedy does not mark the end of that struggle, but rather serves as a catalyst for renewed dedication and vigilance among advocates nationwide.
"Generations of disability activists have fought for community integration, and that fight continues to this day. AAPD will remain on the frontlines of the movement for community living," Town continued.
The implications of the Texas v. Kennedy ruling are currently being evaluated by legal experts, policy analysts, and national advocacy networks. As organizations like the AAPD parse the precise legal text of the order and its downstream effects on federal oversight, the primary objective remains ensuring that individuals with disabilities, their families, and their allies are equipped with accurate information regarding their rights. The removal of the 2024 rule’s specific integration provisions creates a more complex regulatory landscape, but the underlying statutory and constitutional foundations guaranteeing the right to live in the community remain robust.
Moving forward, the AAPD has committed to working closely with disabled individuals, grassroots organizations, and allied legal and policy partners to protect and aggressively enforce the right to live in communities rather than institutions. The organization plans to share further updates, educational resources, and strategic guidance as its legal team fully assesses the ruling and its practical impact on service delivery and civil rights enforcement across the country.
