A diverse classroom with a teacher sitting on the floor next to two students, who are looking at a workbook.

The Ultimate Back-To-School Guide for Families of Children With Disabilities

/in , /by The Arc

The excitement of a new school year is in the air! For parents of children with disabilities, this time brings unique challenges and opportunities. Proper preparation can make all the difference in your child’s growth and success. Here are some practical tips to help you and your child start the school year off right and carry that momentum throughout the year.

  1. Have an open chat with your child about the upcoming year. What are they excited about? What’s making them nervous? Use this conversation to set clear expectations. You can even create a visual calendar together, marking important dates and milestones.
  2. Gradually ease back into the routine. Establish a consistent before and after-school routine that supports your child’s needs, like a calm morning routine, a dedicated homework space, or bedtime wind-down ritual. Keep your weekend plans light early in the school year to give your child time to relax.
  3. Give your child’s individualized education program (IEP) a thorough review. Are there any changes your child has experienced over the summer or since the last IEP? Any assistive technologies that could help? Don’t hesitate to request an IEP meeting before school starts if needed. Keep a journal or digital record of your child’s progress, challenges, and successes throughout the year. It could be invaluable for future IEP meetings and for tracking growth over time.
  4. Connect with your child’s teachers and service providers before school starts. Share your child’s strengths, interests, and hopes for the year. Collaborate on a communication plan that works for everyone. If your child is transitioning to a new school, start planning early. Work with the current and future schools to ensure a smooth transition and take your child on a school tour to familiarize them with their new environment. If your child is attending a before or after care program, establish a relationship with those staff, as well.
  5. Help your child develop self-advocacy. Teach them developmentally appropriate ways to express their needs and preferences at school, such as asking for a break when overwhelmed or requesting clarification on instructions.
  6. The first few weeks might be bumpy as everyone settles in. Give your child (and their educators) time to find their rhythm. Keep a close eye on how things are progressing. If you notice issues, don’t hesitate to speak up. Open and respectful communication can help address challenges early and bigger problems later.
  7. Recognize and celebrate your child’s efforts and achievements. This positive reinforcement can boost confidence and motivation throughout the school year.
  8. Build a support network. Social connections and the sharing of experiences, tips, and resources can be incredibly valuable for your family. Your state’s DD Council, local chapter of The Arc, and inclusive extracurricular activities can help open doors to other families of children with disabilities.
  9. Feeling unsure about your child’s services or supports? The Arc@School is your go-to resource for understanding your rights and finding help when you need it. Knowledge is power—empower yourself to ensure your child gets the education they deserve.

Remember, your well-being matters too. Taking time for yourself, whether it’s a quiet moment with a book or a chat with a friend, can help you stay energized and focused as you support your child’s educational journey.

You’re not alone in this—we’re here to help every step of the way. Let’s make this school year a great one!

A map of the United States of America

A New Limit on Disability Rights Lawsuits? What the Supreme Court’s Decision in Trump v. CASA Means

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

Can a federal court stop the government from enforcing a harmful policy that violates people’s rights, even if those people aren’t part of a lawsuit? That’s the core question in Trump v. CASA, a U.S. Supreme Court case that could reshape how civil rights cases are handled, including those brought by and for people with disabilities.

What Is the Trump v. CASA Case About?

This case challenged whether federal courts can make a ruling that stops the federal government from enforcing a policy across the entire country. This type of ruling is called a nationwide or universal injunction and is powerful because it applies to the individuals or organizations that file a lawsuit, and it also applies to everyone affected by the policy even if they did not bring a lawsuit.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. It said a child born in the U.S. wouldn’t automatically become a citizen if their mother was undocumented or a temporary visitor, and their father wasn’t a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The U.S. Constitution in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Multiple parties including individuals, advocacy groups, and states sued the Trump Administration, arguing that the executive order violated the Constitution. Lower courts agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to win, and they issued nationwide injunctions to stop the policy from going into effect.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow those rulings, arguing that the courts had no authority to block the policy for people who hadn’t directly joined the lawsuits.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court did not rule on whether the new citizenship policy was unconstitutional. Rather, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump Administration on whether lower courts could issue nationwide or universal injunctions. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts can no longer use universal injunctions to block federal policies nationwide—even if those policies are unlawful and harm large groups of people—if the injunction is broader than necessary to provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit. They based their ruling on the idea that federal courts didn’t issue universal injunctions back when the Constitution was written, and so they shouldn’t now.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, strongly dissented:

“The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully.”

Justice Jackson called the ruling a “seismic shock” that opens the door for the government to violate people’s rights unless they sue (and win) in court:

“[It’s] a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound…Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected. This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law.”

The Arc’s Position

The Arc believes that when disability rights are violated on a wide scale, courts must be able to respond with equally broad solutions. If a federal policy is found to be discriminatory, courts should be able to stop it—not just for one person, but for everyone affected. Our position statement on human and civil rights affirms that all people “are entitled to the protection and benefits of the civil rights laws of their country,” and that when those rights are violated, they are “entitled to protection and rights restoration.” Our experience shows that systemic problems require systemic fixes. Limiting the scope of court orders makes those fixes harder to achieve.

Class action lawsuits remain a vital tool, and we will continue to use them. But make no mistake: this decision narrows the path to justice.

How Does This Case Impact People With Disabilities?

This decision makes it harder for people with disabilities (and others whose rights are being violated) to get full protection from the courts.

In the past, nationwide injunctions have played a key role in stopping harmful policies in their earliest stages, including those affecting:

  • Medicaid access
  • Disability-based immigration restrictions
  • Discrimination in public services and programs

Now, those broad protections will be harder to get. People harmed by an illegal policy will have to file their own lawsuits or wait for a class action or a Supreme Court decision, which can take years.

While the decision also prevents courts from invalidating beneficial policies for everyone based on one lawsuit, the overall impact is still negative. Federal district courts — the ones closest to communities — are now limited in how much they can do, even when they find clear violations of federal law.

The fight for civil rights continues. Courts can still hear disability rights cases, and they can still issue powerful rulings, especially in class actions. But this decision means that the first line of defense against harmful federal policies has been weakened. The Arc remains committed to pushing for broad, systemic change in the courts, in Congress, and in communities nationwide.

Additional Reading

Picture of the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC

A Supreme Court Loss for Retirees With Disabilities: What Stanley v. City of Sanford Means

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

What happens when a worker with a disability retires and then faces discrimination in the benefits they were promised? That was the question at the heart of Stanley v. City of Sanford, a case that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court this year. The answer the Court gave was disappointing: under federal law, workers with disabilities lose protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) once they fully retire.

It’s a narrow interpretation with sweeping consequences, and it sends the wrong message about fairness, dignity, and how we value disabled people in the workplace and beyond.

What Was the Stanley v. City of Sanford Case About?

This case asked whether the ADA protects retirees with disabilities from being treated unfairly in retirement benefits simply because of their disability.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for nearly two decades in Sanford, Florida. In 2016, she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a progressive neurological condition that caused physical disabilities. Two years later, she made the difficult decision to retire before age 65.

At the time she was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two groups: those who worked 25 years or more and those who retired earlier due to a disability. But in 2003, the City changed the policy. Now, retirees with disabilities would only get 24 months of health insurance, far less than their nondisabled coworkers who stayed longer.

Ms. Stanley sued, arguing that this unequal treatment was disability discrimination under the ADA.

The U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Stanley’s lawsuit, explaining that the ADA only protects current employees or those looking for work, not fully retired workers like Ms. Stanley. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with this decision. Ms. Stanley then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, saying that the ADA does not protect against discrimination in retirement benefits for people with disabilities. This means that the ADA only covers people with disabilities who either actively have a job or are looking for work. Since Ms. Stanley was retired from her job and not actively looking for a job, she no longer counted as a “qualified” individual under the ADA.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing:

“Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination… Yet, the Court ignores that right today… Americans with disabilities have proven time and again that they can overcome long odds in fighting for their own equality. When that happens, my one wish would be for this Court to stay out of their way.”

The Arc’s Position

The Arc believes people with disabilities should be able to retire with dignity and security. The ADA was meant to eliminate disability discrimination in all areas of life, including employment. Employers should not be paying people with disabilities less or offering them worse benefits than their non-disabled employees. Our position statement on human and civil rights states that federal laws like the ADA must be protected and vigorously enforced. Our position statement on employment states that people with disabilities should have “fair and reasonable wages and benefits.” Furthermore, our position statement on aging states that people with disabilities should have “access to financial support that will provide them with retirement opportunities like those available to other older people who no longer work.”

How Does This Decision Impact People With Disabilities?

This ruling creates a dangerous gap in disability rights protections. Employers may now be free to cut benefits or discriminate against disabled workers after they retire with little to no legal consequence under the ADA.

For people with disabilities, retirement is often not just a life choice; it’s a medical necessity. And yet, this decision makes it easier for employers to deny them the very benefits they earned.

The National Disability Rights Network and other disability rights organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Stanley, explaining that if the Court does not protect against discrimination in retirement benefits “the ADA’s protections against discrimination mean the least when they are needed the most — when workers with disabilities have lost their jobs. . . these workers should not be denied access to post-employed benefits that nondisabled workers enjoy. Nothing in the ADA requires this perverse result.”

While it may still be possible for some retirees with disabilities to challenge discrimination if they are actively looking for work, the ADA will no longer protect people in situations like Ms. Stanley’s.

What’s Next?

This decision narrows the reach of one of the most important civil rights laws for people with disabilities. It’s a setback, but it’s not the end. Disability rights organizations, including The Arc, will continue fighting to ensure that laws like the ADA are interpreted in ways that reflect their original purpose: to protect against discrimination and uphold the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all areas of life.

Additional Reading

A picture of the White House at night

National Disability Groups Condemn Executive Order Taking Away Civil Liberties

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

Washington, DC — The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Disability Rights Network, the Center for Public Representation, the National Health Law Program, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and The Arc of the United States condemn the issuance of an Executive Order on “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.” The Order directs the Attorney General to seek “the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time.”

“This Executive Order appears aimed at upending decades of established Supreme Court precedent and eliminating basic protections that prevent the arbitrary confinement of people based on a disability. We cannot go back to the times when people’s liberty could be taken away with no rhyme or reason, or for reasons like revenge or punishment,” said Jennifer Mathis, Deputy Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “The executive branch has an obligation to abide by Supreme Court decisions rather than seeking to overturn them.”

“What unhoused people with disabilities need is not more policing or confinement, but permanent affordable housing, access to mental health services, and the support to live with dignity in their communities,” said NDRN Executive Director Marlene Sallo. “This executive order diverts resources away from the real solutions we know work and instead embraces coercion over care.”

This is a broader disability rights issue – up to 40% of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), such as Down syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy, and more, also have co-occurring mental health conditions. Currently, only 1 in 10 children and adolescents with IDD and mental health disorders receive specialized services. The solution is sufficient funding for community-based services and appropriate housing, not this Executive Order. Further, at a time when the federal government is making historic cuts to Medicaid, warehousing people in costly institutions is an absurd solution.

The Supreme Court has issued decisions ensuring that Americans have due process protections before the government can take away their liberty and confine them in a psychiatric hospital. Those decisions are the law of the land for good reason. Before the Court clarified these protections, people were too often confined for extended periods of time in psychiatric hospitals with little or no reason—and in some cases, for wholly inappropriate reasons. Many spent years or decades neglected on the back wards of overcrowded state psychiatric hospitals housing thousands of people. These practices destroyed lives and overwhelmed state budgets. Protections against inappropriate commitment are critical, as these practices still occur. Disability Rights Montana documented this problem in a 2022 report, while Disability Rights California found in 2024 that persons with mental health disabilities languish in a county jail without being charged with a crime costing millions of dollars a month. Promoting “maximally flexible” commitment standards will set treatment of citizens with disabilities back by decades.

Kenneth Donaldson was locked up against his will in a Florida state hospital for fifteen years with scant basis when he brought a lawsuit challenging that confinement. The Supreme Court held that the hospital had violated Donaldson’s constitutional rights, noting that “the mere presence of mental illness does not disqualify a person from preferring his home to the comforts of an institution” and that “a State cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.” The Court has reaffirmed these legal principles on multiple occasions. The government must uphold them.

By using federal guidance, grants, or other means to promote “maximally flexible” commitment standards, the Executive Order also interjects the federal executive branch into an area long recognized as the states’ responsibility subject to critical Constitutional protections.

We call on the Administration to uphold the law and support the humane care and treatment of people with mental health disabilities.

# # #

Since 1972, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law has advocated for the civil rights, full inclusion and equality of adults and children with mental health disabilities. The Bazelon Center accomplishes its goals through a unique combination of litigation, public policy advocacy, coalition building and leadership, public education, media outreach and technical assistance—a comprehensive approach that ensures we achieve the greatest impact.

The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) is the nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems and the Client Assistance Programs (CAP) for individuals with disabilities. Collectively, the Network is the largest provider of legally based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States.

The Center for Public Representation is a national advocacy organization dedicated to enforcing and expanding the rights of people with disabilities and others who are in segregated settings. CPR provides technical assistance and support to a network of federally-funded Protection and Advocacy programs in each of the United States and U.S. territories.

The National Health Law Program (NHeLP) is a public interest law firm that protects and improves access to health care for low-income and underserved people and works to advance health equity. We believe that everyone should have access to high quality, equitable health care and be able to achieve their own highest attainable standard of health. We enforce health care and civil rights laws; advocate for better federal and state laws and policies; train, support and partner with national, state and local health and civil rights advocates; and use strategic communications to achieve these goals.

Founded in 1979, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) is a leading national civil rights law and policy center directed by individuals with disabilities and parents who have children with disabilities. Our mission is to advance the civil and human rights of people with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education, and public policy and legislative development.

The Arc advocates for and serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), including Down syndrome, autism, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, cerebral palsy, and other diagnoses. Founded in 1950 by parents who believed their children with IDD deserved more, The Arc is now a network of nearly 600 chapters across the country promoting and protecting the human rights of people with IDD and actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes. Through the decades, The Arc has been at the forefront of advances in disability rights and supports. There are over 7 million people with IDD in the United States, which encompasses over 100 different diagnoses. Visit www.thearc.org or follow us @TheArcUS to learn more.

A picture of a young man in a wheelchair with two adults by his side on a baseball field

How One Day at the Ballpark Meant the World to Families With Disabilities

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

What does a perfect day look like for a family that’s often navigating a world that excludes them? On July 9, families connected to The Arc of Ohio found out, thanks to our national partnership with Lids and the Lids Foundation.

It was a day full of joy, connection, and the kind of belonging that too often feels out of reach. And it all happened because a company chose to step up and demonstrate their commitment to valuing people with disabilities.

The day began at the Lids store in Kenwood Towne Center, where each family was paired with a Lids team member. Together, they picked out hats and shirts, added personal touches with custom stitching, and got to know one another. Lids gave each child a $250 gift card to shop, and it quickly became more than just a shopping trip. It was a chance for kids to feel seen, valued, and empowered.

Then came the main event.

At Great American Ball Park, families got VIP treatment from the moment they arrived. They watched batting practice from the field, met Cincinnati Reds pitcher Brent Suter, and felt welcomed by every staff member they encountered. Before the first pitch, families received gift cards to buy food, thanks to the Reds Community Fund. That small act made it even easier to just enjoy the moment. Then everyone settled into an accessible seating area and watched the Reds take home a win against the Marlins.

It was an evening full of energy and unforgettable moments:

  • A picture of a young man in a wheelchair with two adults by his side on a baseball fieldLogan, who has autism and is non-verbal, lit up as he explored the stadium with his parents and sister
  • Noah, who has cerebral palsy and is non-verbal, beamed as his aide cheered alongside him
  • Coralie, who has Williams syndrome, wore her new Reds cap proudly while enjoying stadium snacks with her mom and brother
  • Daniel and Evie, siblings with autism and Down syndrome, chanted in the stands with their parents
  • And Lids staff laughed, danced, and even went down the giant slide—because the kids asked them to

Jen Powers Alge, a mom and staff member at The Arc of Ohio, shared:
“The families were thrilled to have such an exciting experience. The employees at the Lids store were so warm and fun to shop with. Batting practice had the kids smiling from ear to ear, and the moms and dads were in awe of such a cool, inclusive experience. The Lids Foundation thought of everything to make the day safe, fun, inspiring, and engaging. We are so grateful for the ‘best day ever,’ as one of the kids exclaimed.”

Ted Harton, Senior District Sales Manager at Lids who joined the outing, reflected:
“This experience reminded me what really matters. Spending the day with these families, seeing their love, joy, and strength, was truly inspiring. It was a chance to step outside of the everyday and just be present with people who show us what community and family should look like.”

And while this was a single day, it reflects something bigger. Lids continues to grow its partnership with The Arc, from supporting The Arc@School program to launching an in-store campaign that brings our mission to life in more than 1,000 stores.

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, said:
“At a time when too many companies are quietly stepping back from diversity and inclusion, Lids is stepping up and making a real impact. Their support is reaching families nationwide, fueling vital programs, raising awareness, and creating moments of true connection. But this partnership is so meaningful to The Arc and the millions of people with disabilities and their families with whom we advocate. It deepens Lids’ ties to the communities they serve, energizes their employees, and shows their customers what authentic commitment to our shared values looks like. We need more partners who lead with such purpose. Lids is helping to build a more inclusive future for people with disabilities, and we’re proud to move forward together.”

Starting this August, Lids will once again feature The Arc in stores across the country. Shoppers will be invited to round up their purchase to donate to The Arc and customize their gear with The Arc’s logo—another chance to stand with people with disabilities in a meaningful way. See what’s coming this August.

To every family who joined us, and to every Lids employee who made the day so special: thank you. This is what inclusion feels like. And this is what’s possible when we build it together.

A young man with autism standing in front of trees wearing an orange shirt that says "Disability Rights Are Human Rights"

The ADA at 35: A Legacy Worth Celebrating and Defending

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

Statement from Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States on the 35th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

The Americans with Disabilities Act reshaped this country for the better. For the first time, people with disabilities had legal protections against discrimination and exclusion. It created a framework for access and sent a clear message: disabled people belong in every part of community life.

I was a young Senate staffer in 1990 and had the opportunity to work on the ADA. I’ve spent the last 35 years working to uphold its promise. And I’ve never seen a more urgent moment than this one.

In the same month we mark this milestone, the federal government passed a budget that cuts nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, a program that is the very foundation for inclusion. It helps people live at home, go to school, get basic health care, and contribute to their communities. At the same time, the Department of Education is being dismantled, leading to fewer staff enforcing special education laws. The Department of Energy is eliminating a longstanding rule that ensures new federally funded buildings are physically accessible. And slurs like the R-word are back in mainstream conversation, a huge step backward in basic decency and respect.

These are not isolated developments. Together, they show a national, coordinated pattern of erosion. Protections are being stripped. Services are being cut. And people with disabilities are being pushed back out.

This is exactly what the ADA was meant to prevent. When Congress passed the law in 1990, it found that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in critical areas.” The ADA’s purpose was clear: to provide “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination.” It also set a vision, one that is still relevant today: “equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.”

Yet 35 years later, those goals remain out of reach for far too many. And the very systems meant to protect them are being weakened. It’s no coincidence that disabled people are still fighting for access to education, employment, health care, and opportunity. This world wasn’t built with them in mind—so they’ve had to lead, build, and demand what others take for granted.

So we must ask: Who are we designing our society for? Who do we include, and who do we keep leaving behind? And what are we all missing because of it?

When people with disabilities are not at the table, we lose out on leadership, insight, and solutions. Inclusion is how we build stronger schools, smarter policy, more responsive workplaces, and communities that work for everyone.

The ADA was never the finish line; it was the floor. And right now, that foundation is being weakened by budget cuts, deregulation, stigma, and silence. It’s our job to bring it to life in ways that include everyone.

The Arc and our nearly 600 chapters nationwide are working every day to defend the ADA and build the future it promised. We are fighting for civil rights, community services, inclusive schools, access to health care, and respect. We were there when the ADA was written, advocating side-by-side with self-advocates and families to demand equal rights. And we’ve been there every step of the way since, holding the line, advancing progress, and insisting that the law’s promise becomes real in people’s lives.

Disability is a natural and valuable part of human diversity. It is also the one group any of us can join at any time. That means this fight is not just about disabled people, it is about all of us.

We cannot afford to turn away from these threats. A society that excludes people with disabilities will eventually exclude many more. Inclusion is one of the clearest ways we show who matters in our society. Let’s make sure our actions match our values.

Picture of the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC

Can You Still Choose Your Own Doctor on Medicaid? The Supreme Court Just Made It Harder

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

If you’re on Medicaid, you’re supposed to be able to choose your own doctor. That right still technically exists, but now you can’t go to court to enforce it if states take that choice away. The U.S. Supreme Court made that decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, ruling that Medicaid beneficiaries no longer have an enforceable right in court if they are denied the provider of their choice. This is a big deal, especially for people with disabilities who rely on doctors they trust to understand their complex needs. Here’s what the case was about, what the Court decided, and what it means moving forward.

What Does the Medina v. Planned Parenthood Case Address?

This case asked a simple question: can people on Medicaid sue in court if they’re not allowed to choose their doctor or clinic? Under the Medicaid Act’s “free choice of provider” provision, Medicaid recipients are supposed to be able to go to any qualified and Medicaid-approved provider they choose. But if the ability to bring a lawsuit when their choice of provider is denied is taken away, they can no longer ask a court to step in for a remedy or solution.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

Julie Edwards is a Medicaid recipient with Type 1 diabetes. After being advised by her doctors that pregnancy would pose serious health risks, she sought contraceptive care at a Planned Parenthood clinic in South Carolina. There, she received the care she needed and follow-up treatment for her high blood pressure. She had such a positive experience at the clinic that she wanted to receive all her gynecological and reproductive care there if Medicaid would cover it.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic serves both Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients and provides a broad range of services including contraception, cancer screenings, physical exams, and more. The clinics are known for offering more accessible, timely care—short wait times, same-day appointments, and extended hours—which is especially important for low-income patients, many of whom rely on Medicaid.

But in July 2018, South Carolina’s Governor issued an executive order instructing the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to stop making Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. The reason was to prevent the state from “subsidizing” abortion care, even though Medicaid already restricts funding for that service. Two weeks later, Julie and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the Director of DHHS in federal district court, arguing that South Carolina had violated the federal Medicaid Act by ignoring the “free choice of provider” provision.

Both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs: Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision gives patients the legal right to choose any qualified provider, and that right can be enforced in federal court. South Carolina then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn that interpretation.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision doesn’t clearly give patients the right to sue if a state blocks their doctor choice. Instead, the Court explained that only the federal government can step in if states don’t follow Medicaid rules, not individual patients. This means if your state tells you that you can’t see a certain doctor using Medicaid, you can’t challenge it in federal court anymore.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. She warned that this decision would cause “tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip…countless other Medicaid recipients around the country of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.'”

The Arc’s Position

The Arc, along with the National Health Law Program and other partners, filed an amicus brief in this case. In it, we explained that, “allowing patients to choose a doctor who they trust and with whom they feel comfortable… is a critical component of patient autonomy, satisfaction, and even health outcomes… freedom of access to qualified providers compliments Medicaid’s primary goal of increasing access to health care for all.” Many people with disabilities need providers who understand their communication style, respect their autonomy, and can provide appropriate accommodations. When states remove that choice, it risks eroding access to quality care.

The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights states that the rights within federal laws like Medicaid must be protected and enforced by all levels of society. People with disabilities must be able to sue to enforce their rights when a state denies them. In our position statement on Health we add: “All people, including people with IDD, should have timely access to high quality, comprehensive, accessible, affordable, appropriate health care that meets their individual needs.”

How Does This Impact People With Disabilities?

This decision is a serious setback for the disability community and Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide. Many people with disabilities depend on Medicaid for health care, many of whom are unable to obtain coverage elsewhere. Disabled patients often face discrimination in health care settings and need doctors who understand their unique needs and communication styles. Being forced to see unfamiliar providers or providers who lack the training to accommodate disability-related needs can lead to worse care or no care at all. Now, under Medina, if states decide to force people with disabilities who are on Medicaid to use specific providers, patients wouldn’t be able to challenge that in court. The Court’s ruling overturns decades of precedent that protected this right in most lower federal courts.

Bottom line: You’re still allowed to choose your doctor on Medicaid. But if your state takes that choice away, it’s now impossible to fight back in court. People with disabilities deserve more control over their health care, not less.

Further Reading:

Medical equipment hanging on a wall in a medical office

What LabCorp v. Davis Means for Disability Rights and Class Action Lawsuits

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in a case that could have had a major impact on how people with disabilities fight discrimination through class action lawsuits. The case, LabCorp v. Davis, involves blind patients who sued LabCorp over self-check-in kiosks that were inaccessible to them. While the Supreme Court ultimately didn’t weigh in on the central legal issue, the case still carries important implications. And the fight for accessible health care and public accommodations and a justice system that works for everyone is far from over.

What Is the LabCorp v. Davis Case About?

This case is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of blind people who cannot access LabCorp’s self-check-in kiosks at their medical offices. While the question before the U.S. Supreme Court was procedural, it went to the heart of how people with disabilities come together to challenge systemic discrimination, and whether class actions will remain a viable tool for enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires that health care facilities and any place open to the public must be accessible to people with disabilities.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

LabCorp is a company that provides laboratory services like blood work. Most of their locations now use self-service kiosks for check-in. However, these kiosks are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired patients. A group (or “class”) of blind patients sued LabCorp in a U.S. District Court in California, arguing that the company failed to provide an accessible check-in option for them and therefore violated the ADA. The ADA requires LabCorp’s services to be usable by people with disabilities. LabCorp argued that it did not discriminate because blind plaintiffs could check-in at the front desk instead.

The plaintiffs asked the court to let them bring the case as a class action, representing not just themselves, but all blind people who tried to use a LabCorp location with a kiosk and faced the same barrier. The District Court allowed the class action to proceed. LabCorp appealed, arguing that the class was too broad and included people who weren’t harmed by the inaccessibility of the kiosks, such as blind people who preferred speaking to a front desk attendant. The plaintiffs responded that the harm wasn‘t about personal preference but not having equal access to the same service offered to others.

Before the Court of Appeals could issue a decision, the District Court changed the class definition twice to include only blind people who couldn’t use the kiosks due to their disability. LabCorp didn’t appeal those changes, just the original definition. The Ninth Circuit then sided with the plaintiffs, affirming the original class definition and that the lawsuit could proceed as a class action. LabCorp then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the case without ruling on the core issue. That means that the Justices declined to say whether the class action was valid. Why? Because the lower court had already changed the class definition twice and the version LabCorp was challenging was no longer in play. The Supreme Court said it couldn’t make a ruling based on facts that had shifted.

The Arc’s Position

The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights stresses that the rights of people with disabilities under laws such as the ADA must be protected and enforced. Health care facilities and any place open to the public must be accessible to people with disabilities, including newer technology like the kiosks provided by LabCorp. Class action lawsuits are one of the most powerful ways people with disabilities can challenge discrimination on a systemic basis. If people are denied accessible services, they should be able to seek justice—not just for themselves, but for others facing the same barriers.

How Does This Case Impact People With Disabilities?

Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the key question, the outcome leaves the door open for future disability-related class actions in lower courts. This case highlights the urgent need for accessibility in health care, and how technology can create new barriers if inclusion isn’t built in from the start. Whether it’s checking in for an appointment, applying for a job, or accessing public services, people with disabilities deserve equal access. And when that access is denied, the legal system must be a place where systemic change is still possible.

Picture of a rally in front of the U.S. Capitol with someone holding a "Protect Medicaid" sign

“A Dark Day”: Disability Advocates Respond to House Passage of Budget Bill

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

Today, the U.S. House passed the Senate’s version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill. The legislation now heads to the President’s desk. If signed into law, this bill will result in deep and harmful cuts to the programs that millions of people with disabilities rely on to live, learn, and thrive in their communities.

At a high level, the legislation includes:

  • Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts, slashing almost 20% of the federal program and jeopardizing coverage for nearly 17 million people
  • Nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP food assistance
  • A new private school voucher program that diverts public education funds without guaranteeing protections for students with disabilities

While the bill includes a new option for states to create a new home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver, that provision is far from enough to offset the devastating consequences of these cuts.

For more context on what’s really in this legislation, read our joint piece with the Center for American Progress: “The Truth About the One ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill Act’s Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare”

Below is a statement from Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States:

“Today is a dark day for people with disabilities and their families. This bill puts essential support at risk for millions. Health care, food assistance, and special education services that people rely on every day are now in jeopardy. It will force states to make impossible choices that could strip people of the services they need to live with dignity, safety, and independence. The harm will be real. Families will feel it in their homes, their schools, and their communities. But we are not giving up. The disability community has fought for generations to be seen, to be valued, and to live freely in our communities. That fight does not end today. The Arc and our nationwide network of advocates will keep going. We will never stop advocating for the policies that people with disabilities deserve.”

Picture of the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC

A Major Supreme Court Win: Discrimination Protections for Students With Disabilities

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case that could’ve shook the very foundation of disability civil rights. The Court ruled that students with disabilities have the right to seek justice for discrimination in schools without facing legal barriers that don’t exist in workplaces, housing, or other areas of public life. Here’s why this case matters and what you need to know.

What Is the A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools Case About?

This case is about whether federal disability rights laws require children with disabilities to meet a strict “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when suing because they experienced discrimination in K-12 public schools. This standard means that families would have to prove that school districts and/or administrators acted with a level of intent beyond negligence or indifference, requiring evidence of dishonesty, ill will, or a conscious disregard for the student’s rights This high standard is not required to prove disability discrimination in any other context, including in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which only require showing that the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference.”

What Laws Protect Students With Disabilities?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees a free, appropriate public education for eligible students who have disabilities and need specialized instruction and related services. These services are established in an individualized education plan (IEP) that is created by the child’s parents and the school.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination in places that receive federal funding. Most, if not all, public schools receive federal funding. Section 504 requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations can include allowing a child with diabetes to eat whenever necessary and not be limited to snack of lunch time.

The Americans with Disabilities Act bars discrimination in services provided by state and local governments. Public schools are operated by state or local governments. Like Section 504, the ADA requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

Ava is a student with epilepsy who needed evening instruction due to her seizures, which are so severe in the morning that she can’t go to school until noon. Due to this delayed start, she receives half the educational time as her peers do. Her parents asked for evening instruction to make up for these lost learning opportunities, but the school district denied their requests. Ava’s parents then sued, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the ADA.

Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals decided that a school district’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations is not enough to establish a violation of Section 504 and the ADA. Instead, the lower courts look to see if the school acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” This is a hard standard to meet, and is only applied in certain jurisdictions. It is not applied to other ADA or Section 504 claims outside of school settings. After losing at the District Court and the Court of Appeals, Ava appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that students should not have to show that a school acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment in order to bring a Section 504 or ADA claim. The Court held that “ADA and Rehabilitation claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”

The Court explained that the text of Section 504 and the ADA indicate that courts should not apply a higher standard for discrimination in the K-12 education context than they would in any other disability discrimination case. The ADA and Section 504 plainly applies to “qualified individuals with disabilities” without any reference to where the disabled person obtains a covered service. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that students with disabilities “face daunting challenges. . . those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under” the ADA and Section 504.

The Court also refused to consider a sweeping argument seeking to gut federal disability rights laws by requiring people with disabilities to prove intent in every case of discrimination. That position is flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination. The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.

The Court made clear that schools cannot be held to a lower standard of accountability than other public institutions. Students with disabilities should not have to fight an uphill battle just to hold their schools accountable for unlawful discrimination.

The Arc’s Position

The Arc of the United States has a storied history with federal education laws. In 1971, before federal protections for people with disabilities existed, states were free to exclude children with disabilities from their public schools—and many did. Millions of children were denied an education, not because they couldn’t learn, but because our society didn’t believe they were worth educating. That changed because of federal action. Parents, led by The Arc, fought in court and won. Their victory laid the foundation for the IDEA, which secured the right to a free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of their disability

The Arc’s position statement on education states that all students ought to receive the education to which they are legally entitled; that is a free appropriate public education that includes fair evaluation, the right to progress, individualized supports and services, high quality instruction, and access to the general education curriculum in age-appropriate inclusive settings. All those involved in the education of students with disabilities must ensure that their individualized needs are taken into consideration, that they are challenged and have ambitious goals, and that their families have meaningful participation in the design and monitoring of their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).

The Arc, alongside other disability rights organizations, submitted an amicus brief in support of the disabled student Plaintiff in A.J.T. The brief gave several case examples where a higher standard of proof enabled schools to freely discriminate against students with disabilities.

How Does This Case Impact People With Disabilities?

This case is important to both students and parents of students with disabilities. The ADA and Section 504 provide relief from education-related discrimination, but many courts applied the gross misjudgment standard. This standard made it harder for students to seek relief in federal court. By overturning that standard, the U.S. Supreme Court’s common-sense decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools will allow more disabled people to vindicate their rights in a court of law. The Court restored the full protection of federal disability nondiscrimination law to millions of disabled students. This case was a victory for students with disabilities and their families.

Where Can I Learn More?

AJT v. Osseo Area Schools Case Page