Skip to main content
ADA Legal Link
← Back to Active Cases
TrackingRegulatory challenge

Texas v. Kennedy (formerly Texas v. Becerra)

Multi-state AG challenge to HHS Section 504 rule's integration mandate. If states win, community-integration rights could narrow.

Reading level
Plain language + legal text

What this case is about

Multiple state attorneys general — led by Texas — are suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to challenge HHS's 2024 final rule implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case name changed during the litigation as HHS leadership changed: originally Texas v. Becerra, subsequently restyled Texas v. Kennedy (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the current HHS Secretary as of 2025). What's at stake: HHS's 2024 Section 504 rule (89 Fed. Reg. 40066, May 9, 2024) is the first comprehensive update to the Section 504 regulations in decades. It codifies and strengthens many protections, including the Olmstead integration mandate (the principle that people with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated setting appropriate — not forced into institutions). The rule also strengthens accessibility requirements for medical equipment, online accessibility, value assessments in healthcare decisions, and child welfare disability discrimination. The state plaintiffs argue HHS exceeded its authority and the rule is arbitrary and capricious. What this could mean: if state plaintiffs win (in whole or in part), some of the rule's protections could be vacated. The integration mandate in particular is a major target — it's the foundation of cases like the DOJ investigation of Idaho's nursing-facility integration practices. If HHS wins, the rule stays in force. This case is tracking-only — there's no individual complaint to file. Existing § 504 rights remain in force during the litigation. Organizations like NDRN, AAPD, the Bazelon Center, and state P&A entities are active in the case.

Who may qualify

This is a tracking-only listing. There is NO party status or individual complaint mechanism in THIS specific case. You may want to follow this case if: - You or a family member is in a nursing facility or other institutional placement and wants community-based services. - You have experienced medical-equipment accessibility issues. - You've had healthcare decisions affected by disability-related value assessments. - You're a disability-rights advocate, policy professional, or stakeholder. - You're a member of a disability-rights organization that may file amicus briefs (NDRN, AAPD, Bazelon, DREDF, state P&A). For active individual situations, see the related cross-referenced listings — the existing rule and underlying Section 504 framework still provide enforcement pathways.

What helps your case

Not applicable — tracking-only listing. For substantive enforcement of § 504-protected interests during litigation pendency, see related listings: doj-investigation-idaho-nursing (Olmstead); medical-exam-table-access (MDE).

How to document what happened

Not applicable for tracking-only listings. Robust individual incident documentation under existing § 504 frameworks supports both individual claims and aggregate evidence used in amicus participation in this and related regulatory challenges.

What if you don’t have documentation?

Not applicable. For policy engagement and amicus support: NDRN, AAPD, Bazelon Center, DREDF, state P&A entities. For affected individual matters: see related listings.

What this case doesn’t cover

Outside scope: individual § 504 enforcement under predecessor regulations or the statute (see related listings); separate HHS rulemakings not at issue in this proceeding; ADA Title II/III enforcement (separate framework; only § 504 regulations are challenged here); state-level disability-rights frameworks (unaffected).

APA + constitutional challenge to HHS Section 504 + Olmstead integration mandate

Named defendants

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Case facts

Type
Regulatory challenge
Affected states
Nationwide
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
Filed
2024-09-01

Who to contact

Nobody is running an intake for this one. You can still report what happened.

  • Government agency

    U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

    Takes complaints about businesses open to the public and about state and local government. It investigates and enforces, but it does not represent individuals and cannot advise you on your own claim. If the service takes federal funding, the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights also takes these.

    Phone 800-514-0301

    TTY 833-610-1264

    civilrights.justice.gov/report

    Filing a complaint is not the same as having a lawyer, and it does not pause any legal deadlines. If you may want to bring a case, talk to an attorney about your dates as well as filing.

    Every state has one. They are free, they take intake directly, and unlike a federal agency they can represent you. Find yours

Key dates

Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
Status
Pending; preliminary injunction motions and stays have been litigated
Case rename
Texas v. Becerra → Texas v. Kennedy (post-2024 HHS leadership change)
Lawsuit filed
2024 (approximate)
Outcome timing
Likely 2026-2027 trial-court disposition; appeals to Fifth Circuit likely; possible SCOTUS review
HHS § 504 final rule
2024-05-09 (89 Fed. Reg. 40066)