Does the Section 504 lawsuit put my child’s 504 plan at risk?

A group of states is suing over part of a federal rule connected to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The case is called Texas v. Kennedy — it used to be called Texas v. Becerra. Originally, 17 states joined the lawsuit. Now only five are still part of it.

Section 504 protects students with disabilities from discrimination. It also requires schools to give them equal access to learning and school buildings.

The states originally asked the court to declare Section 504 unconstitutionalopens in a new tab. They dropped that request in 2025. The lawsuit now focuses on a narrower issue: whether the existing Section 504 rules about the right to get services in your own home or community instead of an institution should be removed.

This lawsuit is not part of what’s happening with the U.S. Department of Education. They’re separate situations involving different laws and types of programs. But both could directly affect how the federal government supports and protects students with disabilities.

Here are some answers to help you keep up with the news.

Here’s where the case stood as of early September 2026. 

On September 1, 2026, the five states still in the lawsuit — Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, and Florida — filed a joint request. The request asks the court to approve a final settlement that was reached between the states and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If the judge agrees, it would remove the “community integration” rule. That rule protects people’s right to get services in their own home or community instead of being placed in an institution. It’s based on a 1999 Supreme Court case called Olmstead v. L.C.

The states suing are now arguing that community integration was never actually required by the law in the first place. They say that the government overstepped when it wrote the rule.

They’re not asking a court to say people with disabilities don’t deserve this right. But if they win, the federal government would stop requiring it and stop enforcing it the way it has. The law on the books wouldn’t technically change. But the rules outlining how the law must be implemented would.

This is a separate issue from your child’s 504 plan (more on that below). This lawsuit is part of a larger movement challenging long-relied upon disability rights. That’s why disability groups are speaking up against it.

A ruling on the case could come before the end of 2026. We’ll keep updating this page as the case moves.

Right now, this lawsuit doesn’t put your child’s 504 plan at risk. Here’s why:

• The states aren’t trying to strike down Section 504 anymore. They dropped that claim back in 2025.

• School 504 plans come from a different set of rules. They’re built on the U.S. Department of Education’s regulations, not the Department of Health and Human Services rule being fought over in this case. Those education rules aren’t part of this lawsuit. Only Congress can change the actual laws of Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.

So your child’s legal right to a 504 plan hasn’t changed. We’ll update this article right away if that changes.

On April 21, the judge in the 504 lawsuit responded to the states’ second status report, agreeing to extend the pause in the case. The states are required to file their next status report by July 21.

On April 11, the 17 states that brought the 504 lawsuit Texas v. Becerra filed a status report opens in a new tabwith the court. In it, they said they have “no intention” of asking the court to declare the civil rights law that covers 504 plans unconstitutional, despite what it still says in the suit. The report states:

Plaintiffs further clarify that they have no intention to seek any relief from this Court on Count 3 (Section 504 is Unconstitutional) of their Complaint, including that in their Demand for Relief at d–e, ECF No. 1. And nothing in Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks to restrain the disbursement of federal funds from the Department on the basis that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is unconstitutional, or to otherwise prevent the Federal Government from allocating spending or applying the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act to any recipients of such funds.

A 504 plan is an individual program of school supports for students with disabilities. Each plan is tailored to meet a student’s specific needs. It includes all of the accommodations, assistive technology and tools, and services the school must provide to that student. The purpose is to remove barriers to learning and to provide access to the school environment as a whole.

While 504s are formal programs, there’s no standard template for them. Some schools don’t actually put them into writing.

504 plans are different from IEP plans. They’re not part of special education. They provide supports, not specialized instruction. But both of these programs are designed to give students a free appropriate public education (FAPE) so they can learn alongside their peers. 

Section 504 is part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the country’s first civil rights law for people with disabilities. It protects people with disabilities from discrimination in places that get federal funding. This includes in schools.

President Nixon signed the Act into law in 1973. But it wasn’t implemented for four years. The law lacked regulations and enforcement timelines until 1977, when people with disabilities famously protestedopens in a new tab, including a sit-in that lasted nearly a month.

In September, Texas filed a lawsuitopens in a new tab against the government after the Biden administration added gender dysphoriaopens in a new tab as a protected disability under Section 504. Sixteen other states joined the suit.

The states originally asked the court to declare Section 504 unconstitutional. But they dropped that request in 2025. The lawsuit has since narrowed to focus on a different part of the 2024 rule: the requirement that people with disabilities be able to get services in their own home or community rather than in an institution. This is referred to as the “integration mandate.” 

Separately, in December 2025, HHS proposed removing gender dysphoria from the rule’s list of protected conditions. That process isn’t part of this lawsuit.

These are the other states that originally filed the suit along with Texas:

• Alaska

• Alabama

• Arkansas

• Florida

• Georgia

• Indiana

• Iowa

• Kansas

• Louisiana

• Missouri

• Montana

• Nebraska

• South Carolina

• South Dakota

• Utah

• West Virginia

Most of these states have since withdrawn from the lawsuit. As of early September 2026, only Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, and Florida remain as plaintiffs.