Over the past year, individuals with disabilities, including children and youth, have been on the defense from major challenges to disability rights. In the past month alone, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has walked back its decades-long interpretation of Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) and the Americans with Disabilities Act through their legal memo. On July 20, 2026, the DOJ further clarified that it “will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” Most of the challenges and changes impact the “integration mandate” which allows people with disabilities to receive services in the community rather than in institutions.
Department of Justice No Longer Using Olmstead as the Standard
One month after publishing their legal memo on Olmstead and the “integration mandate,” the Department of Justice released a notice in the Federal Register to clarify its view on Olmstead. The notice states that “The Department will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).”
The guidance referenced from 2011, last updated in 2020, is a Q&A on what qualifies as the most integrated setting under the ADA and Olmstead, who should be able to access services, and much more. Since 2011, courts have upheld the guidance and states and federal governments have relied on the guidance to protect disability rights. The DOJ now states that this guidance is “not enforceable” and not legally binding, which could further jeopardize community services and supports for people with disabilities. The Department cites the statement at the bottom of the Guidance as part of its justification:
“Guidance documents posted to this website are not intended to be a final agency action, have no legally binding effect, and have no force or effect of law. The documents may be rescinded or modified in the Departments’ complete discretion, in accordance with applicable laws. The Departments’ guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedent.”
The Department plans to revisit the Guidance based on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo “to determine whether the Olmstead guidance is consistent with the ‘single, best meaning’ of the ADA.”
Read Family Voices’ response to the legal memo and our fact sheet in English or Spanish.
Section 504 Lawsuit
In September 2024, Texas and 16 other states (Texas v. Becerra) argued that Section 504 is unconstitutional and challenged updated Section 504 rules published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2024. After outrage from the disability community, the states withdrew their claim. However, in January 2026, Texas and eight other states (Texas v. Kennedy) – Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota – renewed their lawsuit on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the integration mandate.
If the lawsuit is successful, especially in combination with the new DOJ interpretation of the ADA and Olmstead, more people with disabilities may be forced into institutions for the services they need instead of receiving these services in their homes and communities.
As of July 2026, the total number of states involved in the lawsuit has dropped from 16 to three. Recent withdrawals include Indiana, South Dakota, Kansas, Montana, Louisiana, and Missouri. However, the case is still active with a briefing schedule running from May 4 to August 6, 2026.
Family Voices and Youth as Self-Advocates (YASA) collaborated to develop plain language information about Section 504, what it covers, and the original lawsuit in both English and Spanish.
Offices of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and Civil Rights Removed from the Department of Education
In June 2026, the U.S. Department of Education announced plans to move the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HS) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). While the Department of Education says OSERS and OCR will keep their responsibilities and work without interruption, the shift will move core education and civil rights function into agencies not designed to oversee schools, special education, or education-based civil rights.
What services are provided by OSERS and OCR?
- OSERS – Office of Special Education (OSEP) and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
- Oversees programs that ensure schools meet the needs for students with disabilities and help the transition from school to work and community life
- Distributes federal special education funding, provides guidance to states and schools, supports teacher training, funds research on effective instruction, and ensures students receive legally entitled services
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Investigates discrimination in schools, including disability discrimination
- The primary way families can seek federal enforcement without going straight to court
What is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
IDEA is an education and civil rights law created when children with disabilities were not allowed in public schools, denied instruction, or forced into . IDEA makes free appropriate public education available to children with disabilities. It governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to millions of eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
IDEA is another piece of how individuals with disabilities can integrate into their communities.
What does this mean for families and children with special health care needs and disabilities?
According to The Arc of the United States: Families spend months, sometimes years, trying to get schools to follow the law. Dividing special education and civil rights enforcement across agencies could add another layer of confusion when students can’t afford to wait.
For families of students with disabilities, the separation of special education and civil rights could mean:
- More confusion about where to go when a child is denied services or accommodations
- Longer delays when a student is missing instruction, therapies, supports, or accessible materials
- Less coordination between special education oversight and civil rights enforcement
- More barriers when a student faces harassment, exclusion, restraint, seclusion, or discriminatory discipline
Read The Arc of the United States’ overview of the agency movement: Moving Special Education Out of the Department of Education Risks Students’ Rights | The Arc
