Understanding Texas v. Kennedy: What the Section 504 Decision Means for Community Integration
For people with disabilities, “community integration” is not an abstract legal phrase. It is about whether someone can receive needed services and supports while living in their own home, maintaining relationships, working, learning, and participating in community life, rather than being unnecessarily segregated or institutionalized.[1]
The September 23, 2026 order in Texas v. Kennedy changed an important part of the federal regulatory framework, but it did not erase the statutes, Supreme Court precedent, or broader legal history that came before it.[2]
A Civil Rights Principle Decades in the Making
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a foundational federal disability civil rights law. It prohibits disability discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.[3] In 1977, the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued regulations implementing Section 504 that included a requirement to provide services in the “most integrated setting appropriate” to a person’s needs.[4]
Congress expanded federal protections with the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. Title II prohibits disability discrimination by state and local governments, and its implementing regulation also requires services, programs, and activities to be administered in the most integrated setting appropriate.[5]
In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed that principle in Olmstead v. L.C. The Court held that unjustified institutional isolation can constitute discrimination under Title II. The decision did not require every service to be provided in a community setting. It identified conditions including whether community-based services are appropriate, whether the individual opposes such placement, and whether the requested modification can be reasonably accommodated without fundamentally altering the state’s program.[6]
In practical terms, Olmstead reinforced an important principle: where a person receives services can itself become a civil rights question.
The 2024 Section 504 Rule
In May 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services updated its Section 504 regulations, describing the rule as modernizing and strengthening disability nondiscrimination protections.[7]
The rule created a detailed integration section at 45 C.F.R. § 84.76. It required covered programs to operate in the most integrated setting appropriate and addressed practices that could result in unnecessary segregation or serious risk of institutionalization. It also preserved a “fundamental alteration” defense.[8]
How Texas v. Kennedy Changed Course
Texas v. Kennedy began in September 2024 as Texas v. Becerra, when a coalition of states challenged the 2024 HHS rule.[9] As the litigation evolved, community integration became a central issue.
A major shift came on June 18, 2026, when the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion adopting a narrower interpretation of Section 504, Title II of the ADA, and Olmstead. OLC concluded that neither statute itself imposed the broader integration mandate reflected in the regulations and that Executive Branch agencies lacked authority to impose such a mandate.[10]
That opinion changed the federal government’s legal position. It did not amend Section 504 or the ADA, and it could not overturn a Supreme Court decision.
Following the opinion, the federal government and the plaintiff states jointly asked the court to vacate § 84.76 and related references to the “most integrated setting.”[11] On September 23, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix granted the motion and entered final judgment.[12]
What Changed, and What Did Not
The court vacated § 84.76 in its entirety, the definition of “most integrated setting,” and related provisions. The affected regulatory language therefore lost binding force beyond only the parties in the case.[12]
The order did not repeal Section 504 or the ADA, overturn Olmstead, vacate the rest of the 2024 HHS rule, or address DOJ’s separate Title II integration regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).[5][12]
The court also did not resolve all underlying legal arguments. It expressly said it was not deciding claims or legal issues beyond those necessary to provide the agreed-upon relief, and the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.[12]
National disability rights organizations have strongly criticized the resolution, arguing that it retreats from decades of federal policy and enforcement supporting community integration.[13] DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, by contrast, maintains that its narrower interpretation better reflects the statutes and Olmstead.[10] Those are competing legal positions, not additional holdings by the Texas court.
Why This Matters in Ohio
Regulations translate broad civil rights laws into more specific expectations for states, providers, federal agencies, advocates, and people with disabilities. Removing regulatory language can therefore create uncertainty about interpretation and enforcement even when underlying statutes and judicial precedent remain.
For Ohioans with developmental disabilities and their families, this ultimately comes back to choice. People should have meaningful options about where and how they live and receive services. They should not have to enter or remain in an institutional setting simply because it is the only practical way to obtain needed supports. Meaningful choice also requires recognizing different needs, preferences, and circumstances.
For ElevateDD, Texas v. Kennedy is larger than one lawsuit. Disability policy develops through statutes, regulations, court decisions, agency interpretation, state implementation, and, importantly, the voices of people with disabilities and families.
We will continue following federal and Ohio developments on community integration, home- and community-based services, and disability civil rights, translating them into clear information for the people most affected.
Community integration may be written in regulations and court opinions, but its impact is personal: whether people with disabilities can receive the supports they need while remaining connected to their homes, relationships, communities, and choices.
Endnotes
U.S. Department of Justice. Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in state and local government services, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).
State of Texas et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al., No. 5:24-CV-225-H (N.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2026) (order and final judgment).
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1977). Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from federal financial assistance. Federal Register, 42, 22,676.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327; Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in state and local government services, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights. (2024). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Federal Register, 89, 40,066. See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Part 84 final rule: Fact sheet.
Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, 45 C.F.R. § 84.76 (2024) (vacated 2026).
State of Texas et al. v. Xavier Becerra et al., No. 5:24-CV-00225 (N.D. Tex. filed Sept. 26, 2024) (complaint).
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. (2026, June 18). Application of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to state institutionalization of patients with severe mental illness or disabilities. 50 Op. O.L.C. ___.
State of Texas et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al., No. 5:24-CV-225-H (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2026) (joint motion for entry of final judgment).
State of Texas et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al., No. 5:24-CV-225-H (N.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2026) (order and final judgment).
The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Justice in Aging, National Health Law Program, & American Civil Liberties Union. (2026, September 24). National disability organizations condemn the federal government’s abandonment of its commitment to community integration for people with disabilities, as approved by the court in Texas v. Kennedy.