In a huge blow to individuals with disabilities and potentially community-based programs established and funded to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 31, 2026, along with the plaintiffs, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, and Alaska, filed a joint motion in Texas, et al. v. Kennedy (Case No. 5:24-cv-00225), requesting that the court strike down multiple provisions of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Section 504 regulation relating to the integration mandate. The integration mandate requires covered entities to administer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally assisted and federally conducted programs. This requirement has been in HHS’ Section 504 regulations for decades, as well as DOJ’s regulations implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II), which applies to states and localities, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).

Among the regulatory provisions that the parties to the lawsuit are requesting be struck are: the definition of “most integrated setting” at 45 C.F.R. § 84.10; the general requirement that an HHS recipient administer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities at 45 C.F.R. § 84.68(d); the entire integration provision which includes specific prohibitions against segregation and institutionalization at 45 C.F.R. § 84.76; and the application of the integration mandate to an HHS recipient’s existing facilities, education programs, and medical diagnostic equipment at 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.22(b), 84.43(d) and 84.93(b), respectively.

DOJ’s action follows the issuance of a June 2026 legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that found that neither Section 504 nor Title II imposed an integration mandate on states in their treatment of individuals with mental disabilities.

While the court has yet to issue its order, we are deeply concerned about the impact that the removal of the integration mandate from the regulation will have on the ability of older adults with disabilities to continue to receive services and supports in their communities.  While the removal of these regulatory provisions in itself would not require providers to take any action, we are concerned that it could provide an impetus for policy changes that would significantly limit access to certain community-based programs for individuals with disabilities.  We will continue to monitor, and will provide updates on, the outcome of this case.