Advocates, parents, and some local officials have voiced their outrage over Republican attorneys general in 17 states’ attempt to overturn a portion of a federal law that protects disabled people from discrimination.
Certain rights for transgender individuals are the focus of the GOP-led lawsuit. However, several experts caution that it may erode federal rights for all individuals with disabilities.
In September, Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that the Biden administration had added a disease related to gender identity to the list of disabilities covered by a 1973 federal law.
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia were among the 16 other states whose Republican attorneys general joined the lawsuit.
However, the AGs are under increasing public criticism due to contradictory statements about the true purpose of the litigation.
Who will be next if they are able to remove safeguards for children with disabilities?
Parent of a disabled child, Charlotte Cravins
According to Charlotte Cravins, an attorney from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, whose 1-year-old son has Down syndrome and is blind in one eye, the disability community is furious and terrified.
Parents and campaigners, including Cravins, highlight passages in the lawsuit where the plaintiffs request that the court declare a whole portion of the statute unlawful. They believe that if the court concurs, it would permit hospitals, workplaces, schools, and other organizations to decline to make concessions that they have been obligated to do for the previous fifty years.
According to Cravins, it would have such a profound impact that everyone in our state and, in fact, our nation, should be worried. Who will be next if they are able to remove safeguards for children with disabilities?
The relevant section, Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, forbids handicap discrimination by organizations receiving government funds. For instance, the legislation forbids medical facilities from refusing organ transplants to patients due to their disability. It mandates that schools permit the use of speech-to-text technologies by deaf students. Numerous disabilities are covered under the law, such as dyslexia, ADHD, autism, diabetes, Down syndrome, and vision and hearing problems.
The Biden administration released a rule in May that expanded the list of disabilities covered to include gender dysphoria, which is the psychological anguish that people may feel when their gender identity does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association defines gender dysphoria.
The American Council of the Blind, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Association of the Deaf, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund are among the national disability rights organizations that have urged the public to speak out in recent days. This has led to a spike in social media activity and calls to state legislators.
In spite of the public outcry, some state AGs are refusing to back down.
Chris Carr, the Republican attorney general for Georgia, maintains that the lawsuit would not impact current disability protections. Rather, he claimed, it only seeks to undo the Biden administration’s inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under the legislation.
According to Carr’s comments to Stateline, the constitutionality of 504 was never questioned. Biden added a woke policy for virtue signaling, which we are opposing.
According to him, the majority of Georgians do not think gender dysphoria should be considered a disability, as if it were the same as autism, dyslexia, or Down syndrome.
Tim Griffin, the Republican attorney general for Arkansas, stated last week that if the states prevail in the lawsuit, the regulations would revert to their pre-gender dysphoria state law status. According to him, if Section 504 were ruled unconstitutional, the federal government would only be unable to stop financing because the law’s provision safeguarding gender dysphoria was broken.
However, in an email, constitutional law expert and UC Berkeley School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky stated that the case expressly requests that the court rule that Section 504 is unconstitutional in its entirety. The request was described by him as “truly stunning.”
Right now, the lawsuit is on hold. The parties to the case decided to put the case on hold while the new administration reassesses the federal government’s position shortly after President Donald Trump took office on January 20. Later this month, a judge is expected to receive status reports. Republican Attorney General J.B. McCuskey of West Virginia and Georgia’s Carr are among the AGs who have stated that they anticipate the Trump administration to overturn the Biden regulation. That might result in the AG’s lawsuit being dismissed.
Meanwhile, other AGs are pulling away from the lawsuit as public pressure increases.
In a statement last week, Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson of South Carolina said that his concerns were allayed by Trump’s executive order dated January 20th, which said that the United States recognizes both male and female sexes. “We’ve finished our mission,” Wilson declared. His statement was interpreted by some activists as suggesting that he could drop South Carolina from the lawsuit.
A representative for his office, however, informed Stateline that South Carolina would not be dropping the case but will instead submit a notice to the court this week to make clear that the state is not requesting that Section 504 be ruled unconstitutional.
In a statement, Republican Utah Attorney General Derek Brown stated that Utah had joined the lawsuit before to his inauguration and that he does not believe Section 504 will be declared unconstitutional due to the impending withdrawal of the rule by the Trump administration that added gender dysphoria to the list of impairments.
According to the AG, gender identity issues are not regarded as disabilities under established federal legislation. According to them, if the Biden rule is upheld, the government will be able to deny federal funds to schools unless they permit transgender students to participate in sports or use locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity.
The mother and lawyer from Louisiana, Cravins, wrote to Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill this week, requesting that she remove Louisiana from the case.
In a statement released Wednesday, Murrill said her office is actively working with the Trump administration to find a way to remove the Biden rule while maintaining the law’s prior protections for individuals with disabilities.
According to Cravins, her son will become even more dependent on Section 504 safeguards as he gets closer to school age since they are essential for his access to specialized therapies. His access to vision-related support, therapy, and other school adjustments will be facilitated under Section 504.
According to Cravins, the AGs who joined the complaint are not being truthful about how it might affect the rights of all disabled persons.
I can’t think of anything other than their being dishonest with their citizens if they say one thing and the lawsuit says another, she said.
After reading a story about Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall joining the case, Ryan Renaud, a school board representative for one of the state’s largest public school districts, said a worried parent who is also an attorney approached him last week. Soon, there were more calls.
In the past few days, we’ve been getting calls from dozens of parents, Renaud told Stateline. He claimed that without Section 504 protections, students might not be able to get a variety of accommodations, such as extra time for testing or classroom assistance.
According to him, the effects can go beyond what most people associate with special education.
According to Renaud, this includes pupils who have diabetes, heart illness, depression, ADHD, or visual impairment. The 504 plan also protects accommodations related to certain health issues.
Without those concessions, students feel less safe in the classroom, and teachers are less able to keep their classrooms in order.
Additionally, he fears that if federal law no longer mandates those accommodations, the U.S. Department of Education funds that helps pay for them may disappear. Trump has pledged to abolish the organization.
According to him, the federal government provides more than a quarter of the $30 million or more we spend year on special education. We must presume that we would have to make up the difference through local or state financing if [accommodations] aren’t nationally protected and the Department of Education lacks the ability to distribute the cash.
Furthermore, it’s unlikely that Alabama will fork up tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to cover these expenses.
According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Education last year, 1.6 million students with disabilities received Section 504 services nationwide in the 2020–2021 academic year.
As a 501c(3) public charity, Stateline is a component of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network backed by grants and a coalition of donors. Editorial independence is upheld by Stateline. For inquiries, send an email to [email protected] to reach Editor Scott S. Greenberger.
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.