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

A woman holding a sign that says "I am Medicaid. Don't cut me!" while standing in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC

An Important Update on the Medicaid Fight

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

The Senate just passed the budget bill, and it’s bad. The bill includes:

  • Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. That’s about 20% of the federal Medicaid budget. It would cause nearly 17 million people to lose coverage.
  • Nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP. Less food assistance means more people will go hungry, including millions of kids.
  • A new private school voucher program that redirects public education funding to private schools. This will make it even harder for children with disabilities to access essential special education services.

Take action now to help us protect the very foundation of care and services!

What’s next? The Senate and the House must agree on a final bill to send to the President for his signature.

“This isn’t over yet, but this is serious, and we need your help,” said Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States. “With your calls, emails, and texts, we can still reach the hearts and minds of members of Congress on what these cuts will mean for people with disabilities and their families.”

We must stop these devastating cuts before it’s too late!