Disability rights advocates in Texas are calling for the state to withdraw from a federal lawsuit they believe could undermine the rights of individuals with disabilities to live in their communities rather than institutions. This concern arises from a lawsuit led by Texas that challenges the constitutionality of the integration mandate established in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The integration mandate stipulates that public entities must provide services to individuals with disabilities in the least disruptive manner possible. Sabrina Gonzalez Saucedo, director of public policy and advocacy at The Arc of Texas, emphasized that this mandate is crucial for ensuring individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to live within their communities without facing unnecessary separation from society.
In July, a gathering of advocates and politicians at the Texas Capitol highlighted opposition to the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. The protest was organized by ADAPT of Texas, a grassroots organization advocating for disability rights. Participants were encouraged to contact Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to express their concerns. Paxton, who is leading the lawsuit, has not yet commented on the matter.
Ron Cranston, a long-time ADAPT volunteer who became quadriplegic after a spinal cord injury at the age of 19, voiced his fears about the implications of Texas v. Kennedy. At 70, he has witnessed the fluctuating landscape of disability rights and believes this lawsuit threatens the ability of disabled individuals to remain in their homes and communities.
Cranston expressed the importance of living independently, stating that doing so allows him to maintain connections with his family and enjoy simple freedoms, such as going for a walk with his wife or visiting the store without needing assistance. He emphasized that these everyday liberties are at risk if the lawsuit prevails.
The multi-state lawsuit, initiated in 2024 by Paxton and 16 other states, originally sought to challenge a federal rule under the Rehabilitation Act that recognized gender dysphoria as a disability. However, following a clarification from the Department of Health and Human Services in April 2025, which stated that gender dysphoria is not protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, many states withdrew their claims.
In January 2026, Texas and eight other states filed a new complaint targeting the integration mandate. Since then, most states have dropped out, leaving only Texas, Alaska, and Florida in the lawsuit. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced his state’s withdrawal, stating that the core issue regarding gender dysphoria had been resolved.
The new complaint argues that the 2024 regulation implementing the integration mandate did not adequately consider the feasibility or costs associated with its requirements, suggesting that community placement may not be suitable for every individual.
Veronica Ayala, a self-advocate with cerebral palsy, recounted her experiences of being institutionalized in the 1970s, decades before the ADA was enacted. She noted that being in an institution stripped her of her rights and the ability to make choices about her care. Ayala expressed concern that the lawsuit could lead to similar experiences for contemporary individuals with disabilities.
She warned that weakening Section 504 could set a precedent for diminishing civil rights across various communities. Advocates have also raised alarms over a recent opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice, which suggested that federal disability laws may not mandate services in the most integrated settings, complicating the ongoing case.
The lawsuit is still pending, with a federal government response expected by August 31.
