Guest Opinion: The truth about a lawsuit threatening disability rights

Claims that Texas v. Kennedy poses no threat to Section 504 do not match what the lawsuit actually asks the court to do. While the Montana Attorney General’s Office has said that “bad faith actors are misconstruing the facts,” the plain text and procedural history of the case tell a different story.

Texas v. Kennedy is a multistate lawsuit, now narrowed after Indiana, South Dakota and Kansas recently, and rightfully, withdrew from the case, challenging the federal government’s 2024 regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Those regulations did not create new disability rights; they clarified how a 50‑year‑old civil rights law must be enforced today, including reaffirming that people with disabilities have the right to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate. That principle was established decades ago and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999.

The lawsuit asks the court to block those regulations entirely, including the provisions that strengthen enforcement of the integration mandate. In doing so, the states argue that the federal government lacks authority to require states to provide services in community settings or to treat policies that place people at serious risk of institutionalization as discrimination. If successful, the case would sharply limit when, and whether people with disabilities can use Section 504 to challenge segregation and exclusion.

Earlier versions of the lawsuit went even further, asking the court to declare Section 504 itself unconstitutional. While the states later backed away from that claim after widespread backlash, the current litigation still seeks to strip Section 504 of its practical force by eliminating the rules that make it enforceable. A civil rights law that cannot be meaningfully enforced is a right in name only.

The attorney general’s assertion that the Biden administration “put protections in jeopardy” by updating the regulations reverses the reality. Before the 2024 rulemaking, Section 504 regulations had not been comprehensively updated in decades, despite major changes in health care systems, technology and disability law. The updated regulations were intended to reflect existing Supreme Court precedent and long‑standing interpretations already applied under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Nor is there evidence that the regulations threaten resources for people with disabilities. To the contrary, weakening the integration mandate risks shifting people away from cost‑effective, community‑based services and back toward institutional settings, an outcome that is both more expensive and more harmful to individuals and families.

Saying that Section 504 itself is “not at risk” misses the point. The danger posed by Texas v. Kennedy is not necessarily the formal repeal of the statute, but the erosion of the rights it guarantees. If states are no longer required to provide services in integrated settings, or can avoid accountability when they fail to do so, then the core promise of Section 504 is undermined.

Montanans are not being scared by bad‑faith actors. They are responding to what the lawsuit actually seeks: a rollback of long‑recognized disability rights and a weakening of the legal tools people with disabilities rely on to live, work, and receive services in their communities.

Travis Hoffman is policy director of Summit Independent Living in Missoula.