Opinion>Opinions - Civil Rights

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

A multi-state lawsuit threatens disabled rights. Trump’s remarks don’t help.

Comments:

by Allison C. Carey, Pamela Block and Richard Scotch, opinion contributors - 05/01/26 12:30 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Allison C. Carey, Pamela Block and Richard Scotch, opinion contributors - 05/01/26 12:30 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

Title: Trump

Image ID: 26120681182331

Article: President Donald Trump speaks before signing an executive order regarding retirement savings in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, April 30, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Trump’s March remarks, suggesting that learning disabilities should be a disqualifier for the presidency, made international headlines. But they overshadowed another urgent issue: Disability rights in the U.S. are under threat.

An imminent danger comes from a lawsuit filed by several states against the Department of Health and Human Services that seeks to invalidate what is known as the integration mandate — a cornerstone of disability rights.

The case involves only a handful of states, but it could significantly set back disability rights across the country, restricting access to disability services in the community and making it easier for states to institutionalize people with disabilities.

Americans must resist this dangerous attempt to undercut foundational disability rights laws and the hard-won rights of disabled people.

The shift from institutional to community-based support for people with disabilities is among the great policy achievements of the past century, dramatically improving the well-being and empowerment of people with disabilities. The lawsuit Texas v. Kennedy jeopardizes this progress. Filed in January by nine states — Texas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana and South Dakota — it takes aim at an updated regulation under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Section 504 requires entities that receive federal funding — including state agencies — to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate for them. The regulation targeted by the lawsuit ensures that people with disabilities can access programs and services in the most suitable environment — often at their homes or in their community — and prohibits actions that could put them at serious risk of being placed in institutions.

It is one of the foundational pillars of disability rights law in the U.S. If invalidated, the legal bases for the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court’s landmark 1999 Olmstead v. L.C.  decision would also be called into question.

Any actions that weaken section 504 jeopardize disability rights. While the requirement that services be delivered in the most integrated setting appropriate is now a fundamental principle of disability rights, this was not always the case. America has a long history of forcing people with disabilities into institutional care with often harmful consequences.

While facilities like Pennhurst in Pennsylvania, Bryce in Alabama and Willowbrook in New York stand out for their history of inhumane treatment, disabled people experienced neglect and abuse at institutions throughout the country. It took decades of advocacy, legal challenges and research showing that most services are best delivered in the community to shift support from institutional to community-based settings.

The integration mandate fundamentally changed the way Medicaid provided services to people with disabilities, shifting its funding from institutional settings to home and community-based services. This change spurred service providers to develop innovative programs and services that foster inclusion and self-determination for people with disabilities.

The result has been an overall higher quality of life and more autonomy for people with disabilities. The positive impact of community integration does not happen without resources and services, though. Research shows that a broad infrastructure of rights and support is necessary for people with significant disabilities to thrive in the community.

Nullifying the integration mandate would jeopardize this progress and put those with disabilities at greater risk of being institutionalized. The lawsuit is particularly frightening as it comes in tandem with cuts to Medicaid and safety-net programs and easier paths to involuntary institutionalization.

Last year’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill Act dramatically reduced Medicaid federal spending. In response, states are likely to decrease home and community-based services that are considered discretionary. The act also cuts spending on safety-net programs that disproportionately serve people with disabilities, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs