Photo via Unsplash/Kenny Eliason

Education

POV: Accommodations Provided to Students with Disabilities Under 504 Plans Are Now Threatened

Pending lawsuit, if successful, “would significantly restrict the civil rights and freedoms of people with disabilities”

If you knew someone at school who was provided extended time on tests because of a learning disability, or permission to have extra snacks because of diabetes, or adjusted class time following a concussion, there is a good chance they received those accommodations through a “504 plan.” Schools provide 504 plans as a requirement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal legislation that protects the civil rights of people with disabilities. Now, these civil rights are in jeopardy. Seventeen states brought forth a lawsuit seeking to declare Section 504 unconstitutional. And this lawsuit, if successful, would dismantle disability protections in all 50 states.

What is Section 504 and why is it important?

For over 50 years, Section 504 has explicitly prohibited disability-based discrimination in any programs or activities receiving federal funds: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States…shall, solely by reason of his or her [disability], be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…” This protection from discrimination means that people with disabilities must have comparable opportunity and access to programs and activities as people without disabilities.

In public schools, 504 plans describe accommodations so students with disabilities—who do not need special education services—have comparable access to classrooms, programs, and activities as students without disabilities. Section 504 has a broad, functional definition of disability: “Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.” Thus, Section 504 protections apply to a wider range of students than students with disabilities who are eligible for special education services under one of the 13 categorical definitions of disability (e.g., autism, specific learning disability, intellectual disability) mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Many BU students had 504 plans in PK-12 schooling or knew friends who did; 504 plans structure the provision of individualized support and understanding, allowing students to fully engage academically and socially with their peers. Unlike special education services described in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Section 504 protections apply beyond PK-12 schooling throughout one’s lifespan. Thus, Section 504 also applies to private doctors’ offices, hospitals, and medical facilities that take Medicaid or Medicare; state Medicaid, disability, and aging programs; and clinical research, child welfare programs, housing programs, employment programs, and more.

As the first national legislation to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities, Section 504 is recognized as foundational disability legislation. It is also central to both the disability rights and the independent living movements. Despite being passed in 1973, the then US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) delayed issuing regulations to implement Section 504 for several years. Regulations were finally signed on April 28, 1977, after hundreds of disability rights advocates, including Judy Heumann and Brad Lomax, staged a 26-day sit-in at the HEW offices in San Francisco. This watershed moment is compellingly documented in the Power of 504 (2010) and Crip Camp (2020).

So, what motivated the lawsuit? The 17-state lawsuit was initiated following updates to Section 504 last year. These updates, made with input from over 5,000 people with disabilities and disability-related organizations, were published in May 2024 and went into effect in July 2024. Then, in September 2024, 16 states joined Texas in filing Texas v. Becerra (Xavier Becerra was then the United States secretary of health and human services) in opposition to several key aspects of the new regulations. But the lawsuit also extended the complaint to the constitutionality of Section 504 altogether, which would remove the protections granted under the legislation and significantly restrict the civil rights and freedoms of people with disabilities.

Opposition to the Section 504 updates centers on several issues. One is that the new regulations include a preamble that raises the possibility of including “gender dysphoria” as a disability. However, setting aside what protections there should be, the term “gender dysphoria” was only mentioned once in the preamble and was not actually included as part of the new regulations. 

Another concern raised in the lawsuit is that the updated regulations require provision of services in the “most integrated setting.” The idea here is that people with disabilities have the right to live and work meaningfully in their communities rather than languishing in institutions, nursing homes, and sheltered workshops. This right has been codified in legislation since the Olmstead v. L.C. Supreme Court decision in 1999 declared that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities was a form of discrimination prohibited under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were concerned with the cost of supporting people with disabilities in the most integrated settings. Overall, this lawsuit adds to the unprecedented attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs (and values) that we have witnessed during the past couple of weeks.

All of the 504 protections are at risk of being taken away. On February 19, the plaintiffs and Department of Justice filed a joint status report that basically changed nothing about the lawsuit. They still claim that Section 504 protections are unconstitutional beyond a limited scope of federal programs and continue to seek limited interpretation of Olmstead. Several state attorneys general claim they will still have 504 plans in school, though that is unlikely without the law mandating them. All of this ignores the basic fact that people with disabilities are people who must have their rights protected and their lives valued, as we all do. If this lawsuit is successful, it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to attacks on other civil rights–focused spending clause statutes, as well as the ADA, which has connections to Section 504.

If you are interested in helping to stop the attack on Section 504—especially if you live in one of the 17 plaintiff states—visit the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund’s Protect 504 webpage.

Zach Rossetti is an associate professor of special education at BU Wheelock College of Education & Human Development. He can be reached a zsr@bu.edu.

Fiona Holton (COM’28) and Vincent Semidey (Wheelock’26) contributed to this POV.

 “POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact today@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.