Disability rights advocates rally at Texas Capitol, urge state to drop out of lawsuit

The advocates urged Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to withdraw from a lawsuit they say threatens their protections.

AUSTIN, Texas — Disability rights advocates rallied at the Texas State Capitol on Friday, urging Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to withdraw from a lawsuit they say threatens crucial protections for people with disabilities.

In September 2024, when former President Joe Biden was in office, Paxton filed a lawsuit against the federal government, asking to remove gender dysphoria from the definition of disability in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

At the time, Paxton said expanding the definition would take resources away from people with what his office called “genuine disabilities.”

Established in 1973, the law provides protections against discrimination for people with disabilities in schools, housing, health care, and entities that receive federal funding.

It also requires physical access to buildings and curbs.

“504 is at the base of my liberty, my rights as a person with disabilities,” Ron Cranston said. “It’s imperative to have access. Programmatic, architectural and attitudinal access.”

State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (D-Austin), who is also running as the Democratic nominee for Texas Comptroller in November, called it “an outrageous attack on the Rehabilitation Act.”

“The Rehabilitation Act only requires services in the least restrictive, appropriate setting. That is the floor, not the ceiling,: Eckhardt said. “The idea that our state, the second wealthiest state in the nation, one that is more than capable of meeting that floor, is asking the courts to be relieved from this regulatory burden…this is an outrageous attack.”

Lauren Peña, the Republican nominee for Texas’s 37th Congressional District, which includes a large portion of Austin, also called on the state to withdraw from the lawsuit.

“Please drop out of this lawsuit and protect my neighbors, protect my family and protect my community from programs that are being funded through the federal government that are not complying with ADA, violating our 504,” Peña said.

Advocates said if the lawsuit succeeds, it could lead to the elimination of Section 504 entirely, jeopardizing those safeguards.

“Texas versus Kennedy is a direct threat to a fundamental right for people with disabilities, the right to live independently and participate in their communities freely,” State Rep. Donna Howard (D-Austin) said. “We all know the outcome of this lawsuit could upend the lives of millions of people across this country and will open the doors to policies that exclude, discriminate against, and institutionalize people with disabilities. We know our loved ones will suffer.”

Initially, Texas and 17 other states sued, but several have dropped out, leaving only six, including Texas. The remaining states in the lawsuit have said they do not intend to dismantle Section 504 entirely. Instead, they aim to prevent its application to gender dysphoria.

Advocates are concerned that a ruling against Section 504 could have unintended consequences, potentially undermining other disability rights laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“If this goes through and makes it to the Supreme Court, it could mean that every state would have the ability through the law not to give access to people with disabilities, whether you’re blind, whether you’re deaf, whether you have a physical disability like myself, whatever the disorder is,” Cranston said. “This is just the same as losing access if they enact and it goes through the Supreme Court.”

In the past, Paxton’s office emphasized that the lawsuit does not seek to remove protection for those currently covered under the Rehabilitation Act. However, that is not how advocates at the Texas Capitol see it, as they called for the Lone Star State to withdraw from the litigation.

“The collateral damage that could come from these lawsuits and the Olmstead decision being overturned is huge,” Nathan Taylor said. “This is a bedrock, you know, disability rights law, and the consequences are terrifying.”

Jill and Nathan Taylor came from Dallas with their 4-year-old son Teddy, who has a rare genetic condition called STXBP1. There are only roughly 1,000 cases in the United States.

“These programs are really what make it possible for people with kids like ours to continue to take care of them in their homes and not lose their kids,” Nathan said. “It is a real possibility.”

“There are provisions in place through the ADA that make sure, whenever possible, my son can be included in the community, whether that be at school or through programs that pay for at-home nurse care or paid family caregivers,” Jill Taylor said. “The idea is that it’s a cost savings to the government to have families caring for these kids rather than having to put them into institutions. It also helps to keep them included. It helps to keep them from being separated and excluded from society.”

In the landmark 1999 civil rights case Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination under the ADA.

“The ability to live and be integrated with everyone and be accepted as human beings worthy of respect and dignity,” Brian Anthony Chase said. “So that way they would not have to be forced to live in restrictive care settings such as nursing homes, long-term care facilities or even institutions, and they would be able to live in outside integrated settings with the assistance that they need as needed.”

In a 39-page memo issued in June, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel argued that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not mandate that states provide community-based care. It said previous court rulings and government enforcement have misinterpreted the Olmstead decision.

The DOG argued that the decision established only that unjustified institutionalization constitutes discrimination and did not impose an “integration mandate” requiring states to offer home- and community-based services.

The memo also argued that while Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination, it does not mandate specific services or force states to provide community alternatives to institutional care.

“Going forward, it’s going to be harder to lobby the Department of Justice to make sure that you’re right for community integration is honored,” Chris Polanco said.

Tuesday is a critical filing deadline in the case. It marks the closure of the court-ordered briefing schedule. The states are required to submit their final written arguments to the judge, asking the court to overturn the updated 2024 Section 504 rules.

“That’s why we’re here, and it’s imperative that we do this in a timely fashion,” Cranston said.

During the rally, organizers encouraged attendees to call the Office of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General.

“When we’re together doing this, letting people know what happens, it makes a difference,” Cranston said. “It has in the past. It can again.”