CW: Institutionalization
The battle for disability rights is heating up as Texas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota plan to file a lawsuit against a 2024 change in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations related to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The lawsuit targets the federal government’s longstanding integration mandate. It is a core principle of disability policy that says disabled people should receive support in the most integrated setting possible rather than being placed in institutions.
The revised mandate strengthens this expectation. It requires any state or local government agency, or any group receiving Health and Human Services funding, to ensure that disabled people can access services in community-based settings whenever they can. It also clarifies that discrimination is not limited to physically placing someone in an institution. If a state’s policies or service gaps put a person at serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization, that also violates Section 504.
State officials argue that this grants the federal government too much control over disability service funding. Their lawsuit claims the rule is unconstitutional because it imposes new obligations that Congress never approved and forces states to stretch budgets to increase home and community-based services. They also argue that the federal government is effectively rewriting disability law through regulation instead of legislation, and that the broadened definition of discrimination puts states at risk of penalties even when they believe they are trying to comply.
Disability rights advocates view the situation differently. For them, the integration mandate is not federal overreach; it is a civil rights protection supported by decades of advocacy, research, and legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s landmark 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. decision.
Advocates warn that without strong federal enforcement, states could reduce home and community-based services, create longer waiting lists, and rely more heavily on institutional settings. This would undermine the dignity and autonomy of disabled people.
I have lived in my own apartment for almost six years. It would be devastating if I were forced into a facility. I would feel stripped of my freedom. Disabled people have fought for decades to live in our communities; we can’t go back now.
This lawsuit highlights a deeper national conflict: whether the right to live in one’s community is a true civil right or merely a privilege that a state can grant or revoke. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will help define how far the federal government can go to ensure that disabled people are not institutionalized simply because home and community-based services are lacking.
Sources:
“Community Integration.” ADA.Gov, 27 Jan. 2026, http://www.ada.gov/topics/community-integration/.
Diament, Michelle. “States Sue over Right of People with Disabilities to Live in the Community.” Disability Scoop, Disability Scoop, 2 Feb. 2026, http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2026/02/02/states-sue-over-right-of-people-with-disabilities-to-live-in-the-community/31838/.
Dilworth, Jackie. “Texas and Eight Other States Attack Section 504 and the Right of Disabled People to Live in Their Communities.” The Arc, The Arc, 28 Jan. 2026, thearc.org/blog/texas-and-eight-other-states-renew-attack-on-section-504-and-the-right-of-disabled-people-to-live-in-their-communities/.