XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.society.liberalism, alt.transgendered XPost: sac.politics

The Biden administration claimed "transgenders" were mentally ill
dysfunctional sexually confused retards.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was signed into law by President Richard
Nixon in September of 1973. Section 504 of that act codified the civil
rights of persons with disabilities. “No otherwise qualified individual”
can be, simply because of their disability, “denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination" in any program or activity that receives
federal funds.

That law has turned out to be hugely important in education, offering an
even broader definition of students with special needs than the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Now 16 states have joined Texas in a lawsuit asking the court to declare Section 504 unconstitutional.

On the surface, the lawsuit appears to be one more battle over the rights
of transgender citizens. Under the Biden administration, the Section 504 definition of disability was expanded to recognize that “gender dysphoria
. . . may be considered a physical or mental impairment.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration in September 2024, saying
that the Biden administration was “abusing executive action” to sidestep
the law. The state was suing, he said, "because HHS has no authority to unilaterally rewrite statutory definitions and classify 'gender dysphoria'
as a disability."

The suit spends over 30 pages objecting to the addition of gender
dysphoria to the Section 504 definition. It argues against the rule’s understanding of gender dysphoria. It argues against the characterization
of Olmstead, a 1999 case that found persons with mental disabilities have
the right to live outside of institutions. It argues that the new
definition conflicts with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It asserts
many negative impacts for each of the states that have joined the suit, including, in many cases, challenges with Medicaid compliance.

Then, on page 37, as it reached its third of four counts, the lawsuit
switches gears, arguing not for an excision of the new language, but the elimination of Section 504 entirely. The suit argues that Section 504 is “coercive, untethered to the federal interest in disability, and unfairly retroactive” and therefor unconstitutional.

504 plans are common in all 50 states. Like an Individualized Education
Program (IEP), a 504 plan puts in place a specialized program and supports
to help students with special needs success and ensures that they will not
be discriminated against in classes or activities. 504 Plans address a
wide variety of needs, including visual impairment, diabetes, heart
disease, epilepsy, depression, and ADHD. Section 504 is meant to guarantee
that these students cannot be discriminated against and that they will get
the supports they need as they receive a free and appropriate public
education.

Attorney Generals involved in the suit have argued that 504 plans are not
at risk. When confronted with protestors, the communications director for
the Iowa Attorney General’s office told Michaela Ramm of the Des Moines Register, “The Iowans who were fed lies to show up at our office today in freezing temperatures deserve the truth, and the truth is that no one’s
504 plan is being changed or removed.”

But the language of the lawsuit is quite clear. The fourth item under
“Demand for Relief” is

Declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional

Followed by

Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing Section 504

For all intents and purposes, Section 504 would cease to exist, and with
it, any requirement for states to meet the needs of students with special
needs currently benefiting from 504 plans, or any such students in the
future. If the Trump administration goes through with plans to dissolve
the Department of Education and turn IDEA funding into block grants that
states can use for any purpose, students with special needs will suffer a double hit.

A decision for these 17 states will reverberate through all 50, and for individuals of all ages.

The plaintiffs in the case are Xavier Becerra as the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, a post he no longer holds, and the department itself,
which will be headed under the Trump administration by Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr. Kennedy has said that he would support the Trump administration’s push
to reverse the previous administration’s expansion of transgender care; a robust defense against the suit seems unlikely.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division.

The seventeen states are Texas, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. Many of those
states have Parents’ Rights laws, but if they win, parents of children
with some special needs will have fewer rights protected by law.

I reached out to Attorney General Paxton’s office with a request for
comment and will update this post if I receive a reply.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2025/02/13/17-states-sue-to-end- protections-for-students-with-special-needs/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)