An Asian woman with short hair is helping a young Black girl color a picture on a green and yellow desk

Broad Coalition Urges Congress to Keep Special Education and Civil Rights in the Department of Education

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

The Department of Education calls its plan to move special education oversight to Health and Human Services and school civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice a “partnership.” Disability, civil rights, education, parent, and educator organizations see something very different: core education and civil rights responsibilities being moved away from the agency Congress charged with protecting them.

The Arc of the United States joined a broad coalition urging Congress to reject these transfers and keep special education, Section 504 enforcement, vocational rehabilitation, and school civil rights protections connected inside the Department of Education. Read The Arc’s full statement on what this move could mean for students with disabilities, families, schools, and civil rights enforcement.

Download the Coalition Letter

Full Coalition Letter

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 18, 2026

Broad Coalition of Disability, Civil Rights, and Education Organizations Denounces ED’s Latest Transfers of Core Functions

Washington, D.C. — The undersigned disability, civil rights, and education organizations strongly oppose the Administration’s efforts to transfer the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) through Interagency Agreements (IAAs). These agreements undermine the core foundation of federal disability, education, and civil rights policy and implementation.

Students with disabilities deserve educational systems that are designed around their needs, rights, and opportunities, not administrative restructuring that risks disrupting critical services and protections. They deserve equitable access to education, robust protections under the law, and an intact Department of Education that is committed to their success and steadfast in defending their rights.

Far too many students experience unacceptable barriers to receiving services and supports – but these transfers do not reflect meaningful solutions to this problem. While ED states that stakeholder input was considered, these IAAs do not reflect the concerns widely expressed by parents, educators, disability organizations, and civil rights advocates. Congress specifically entrusted ED with administering the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), enforcing Section 504 protections in public schools and colleges, overseeing vocational rehabilitation programs, and safeguarding the civil rights of students with disabilities. Congress has repeatedly reauthorized and strengthened these laws within the Department since its establishment in 1979, creating an integrated framework for students with disabilities that connects educational opportunity, civil rights enforcement, transition services, workforce preparation, and employment outcomes.

Transferring OSERS to HHS moves critical education, transition, and employment programs into an agency primarily focused on health care, weakening the coordination between schools, vocational rehabilitation, and postsecondary opportunities. Furthermore, separating OSERS from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), which funds and oversees K-12 education programs, segregates disability-related education programs from the broader education system and weakens the coordination necessary to ensure students with disabilities are fully included in general education. Special education is not a separate enterprise. IDEA is built on the principle that students with disabilities should be educated alongside their peers and have access to the same academic standards, accountability systems, and opportunities for success. State education leaders and educators⸺including both general and special educators⸺also rely on ED’s expertise, guidance, monitoring, and technical assistance; responsibilities that Congress unilaterally funds and directs the Department to provide.

Likewise, transferring OCR to DOJ separates education-focused civil rights enforcement from the agency responsible for education policy and oversight, exposing students and their families to longer wait times when discrimination is occurring in schools and risking the loss of specialized expertise that students and families rely upon to resolve their complaints and drive necessary improvements in school policy and practice to prevent future discrimination. It will also discourage some families from seeking assistance or filing complaints due to concerns about engaging with a law enforcement agency rather than experts in education and disability law.

Congress intentionally built an education and vocational rehabilitation continuum that supports individuals with disabilities from early intervention through school, postsecondary education, and employment. Moving OSERS to HHS and OCR to DOJ dismantles this coordinated and cohesive approach and threatens decades of progress advancing educational, employment, and civil rights outcomes for students with disabilities.

The undersigned organizations urge Congress to reject these transfers and preserve the Department of Education’s longstanding and Congressionally mandated roles to lead, direct, oversee, administer, and enforce the laws and programs that support opportunity, inclusion, and success for all students with disabilities.

Organizations that Signed the Letter

The letter was signed by a broad coalition of national, state, and local disability, civil rights, education, parent, educator, and community organizations, including The Arc of the United States, ACLU, National Disability Rights Network, Council for Exceptional Children, National Education Association, National Center for Learning Disabilities, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, COPAA, and dozens of state and local groups across the country. Download the full coalition letter to see the complete list of organizations.

A black and white picture of people with disabilities protesting to get Section 504 signed

DOJ Opinion on Olmstead Threatens the Right of People With Disabilities to Live in the Community

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion that threatens one of the most important civil rights protections for people with disabilities: the right to live and receive services in the community, not be unnecessarily confined to institutions.

The opinion targets Olmstead v. L.C., the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized institutional isolation of people with disabilities as discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For more than 25 years, Olmstead has helped people with disabilities fight for the supports they need to live at home and in their communities.

This opinion isn’t a court decision. It doesn’t erase Olmstead or change Supreme Court precedent. It also doesn’t take away the ADA, Section 504, or the regulations that protect community living.

But it’s dangerous because rights mean less when the federal government refuses to enforce them. This opinion seeks to undermine one of the strongest protections people with disabilities have from being pushed into institutions when they can and want to live in the community. The DOJ itself acknowledges that this opinion is “out of step” with how federal courts have understood Olmstead.

For people with disabilities, this is about whether they can get services at home instead of being forced into a facility. It’s about whether children and adults with disabilities can stay connected to their family, friends, school, work, and community life. It’s about whether people have a meaningful way to protect their rights when a state or system says “no.”

“This opinion is a direct threat to decades of progress toward community living for people with disabilities which has always been at the heart of The Arc’s 75 years of advocacy,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the United States. “Olmstead remains the law of the land, but this opinion tells people with disabilities that the federal government seeks to attack one of their most basic civil rights. People with disabilities shouldn’t be forced into institutions because a state refuses to provide services in the community. The Arc will keep fighting to protect Olmstead, Section 504, the ADA, and the right to live in the community.”

This is confusing and upsetting news, but it’s important to understand what has changed and what hasn’t. Here’s what people with disabilities, families, and advocates need to know right now:

  • Olmstead is still Supreme Court precedent
  • The ADA and Section 504 are still law
  • The integration mandate still exists in federal regulations
  • People’s rights have not disappeared
  • The federal government is signaling that it may stop enforcing key protections for community living
  • People with disabilities and advocates must stay alert, organized, and ready to push back

This isn’t the end of Olmstead. It’s the start of a new fight to protect it.

Disability rights aren’t always weakened through one big repeal. Sometimes they’re weakened through legal memos, withdrawn guidance, reduced enforcement, and regulations that get rolled back. That’s why this opinion matters.

Olmstead began with two women, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, who were held in a Georgia state hospital even after professionals said they could live in the community. Their case helped affirm a basic truth: people with disabilities shouldn’t have to live in institutions just to receive services.

For The Arc, this fight isn’t new. Our movement was built by families and people with disabilities who rejected institutionalization and demanded the right to live, learn, work, and belong in the community. Today, that fight continues in courtrooms, in Congress, in federal agencies, in state capitols, and through our 549 chapters across the country.

The DOJ opinion also comes as disability rights are being challenged from multiple directions, including lawsuits and policy efforts that seek to weaken Section 504, the ADA, and the integration mandate. The Arc is monitoring these threats closely, including Texas v. Kennedy, and will continue working with legal partners, chapters, and advocates to protect community living from every angle.

Community living is a civil right won by people with disabilities, families, and advocates who fought segregation for generations. People with disabilities belong in their communities, with the services and supports they need to live the lives they choose. The Arc will keep using every tool we have to protect that right.

DOJ Olmstead Opinion FAQ: What It Means for Disability Rights and Community Living

Does the DOJ opinion overturn Olmstead?

No, this opinion isn’t a court decision. It doesn’t overturn Olmstead v. L.C. or change Supreme Court precedent. The ADA, Section 504, and the integration mandate still exist. But the opinion is dangerous because it says the federal government may stop enforcing one of the strongest protections people with disabilities have against unnecessary institutionalization.

Is Olmstead still the law?

Yes, Olmstead is still the law. For 27 years, it has helped protect the right of people with disabilities to live and receive services in the community instead of being unnecessarily separated in institutions.

What is the integration mandate?

The integration mandate requires services to be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate. It helps protect the right of people with disabilities to live and get services in the community, not be forced into institutions when they can and want to live in the community.

What does the DOJ Olmstead opinion mean for people with disabilities?

Right now, people’s rights haven’t disappeared. But the federal government seeks to undermine one of the key protections for community living. That could make it harder for people with disabilities to get help from the federal government when they are denied services at home, pushed toward institutional care, or separated from community life.

Can people with disabilities still bring Olmstead claims?

Yes, people with disabilities can still bring Olmstead claims. The opinion doesn’t erase the ADA, Section 504, or the right to challenge unnecessary institutionalization. But if the federal government steps back from enforcement, people with disabilities and advocates may have to rely more heavily on private lawsuits, state advocacy, and disability rights organizations to protect these rights.

A photo of advocates in Florida rallying to end the use of the R-word

Why the R-Word Is Still a Slur: History and Harm

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

After The Arc’s recent Teen Vogue op-ed about Euphoria’s repeated use of the R-word, thousands of people responded across social media. Some comments showed gratitude and deep pain. Others showed how many people don’t understand the harm this word carries.

Again and again, people defended the word with some version of: “People are too sensitive,” or “I don’t use it against people with disabilities.”

But those responses don’t change the real issue: the R-word still causes harm, no matter how casually it’s used.

When people use the R-word as an insult, it turns intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) into shorthand for something ridiculous, embarrassing, annoying, or wrong. It doesn’t have to be aimed at a person with a disability to demean people with disabilities.

That’s why the history matters. Let’s be clear about where the R-word came from, and what it means now.

What Is the History of the R-Word?

Where Did the R-Word Come From?

The R-word comes from the Latin retardare, meaning to slow down, delay, hold back, or hinder. But where a word starts isn’t the same as what it means now.

In the United States, the R-word moved from a general word about delay into medical, educational, and legal language used to classify people with intellectual disabilities. Over time, it became a slur used to demean people across the broader IDD community.

How Did the R-Word Become a Medical Term?

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, the R-word was being used in relation to developmental delay and cognitive disabilities. At the time, it was viewed as a clinical term, but that doesn’t make its history harmless.

The word didn’t come from people with disabilities describing themselves. It came from systems built to label and classify them.

In that era, disability was often treated as something to cure, avoid, or separate from public life. Many people with disabilities were placed in institutions, denied education and employment, and shut out of community life. Eugenics made those attitudes even more dangerous, fueling laws and policies that restricted people with disabilities from immigrating, marrying, having children, and controlling their own futures.

The language used about people with disabilities reflected a society that too often made decisions about their lives without recognizing their full humanity.

How Did the R-Word Become a Slur?

The R-word didn’t become a slur overnight. Once it entered medical, educational, legal, and government systems, it became part of how people with intellectual disabilities were labeled in daily life, from school records to public benefits to disability services.

Then people pulled the word out of that context and used it to mock anyone or anything they saw as foolish, embarrassing, or wrong. By the mid-20th century, the word was being used as a slang insult, and by the 1960s it had become widely recognized as a term used to demean. For years, that insult overlapped with official use, turning a real label for people with intellectual disabilities into shorthand for something bad.

That’s why “I don’t mean people with disabilities” doesn’t hold up. When the R-word is used to mean bad, wrong, ridiculous, or embarrassing, it still treats disability as something to reject or look down on.

A person with IDD doesn’t have to be in the room for the word to target them. The target is built into the word.

How Did the R-Word Become Widely Rejected?

The shift away from the R-word was part of a larger disability rights movement. People with disabilities, families, and advocates, including The Arc, pushed schools, lawmakers, media, and the public to recognize what the word had become: a slur that demeaned people with disabilities.

That advocacy led to progress. In 2010, Rosa’s Law replaced “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” in federal laws, reflecting what people with IDD had been saying for years: the R-word was deeply stigmatizing and harmful.

Rosa’s Law changed federal laws, but not state or local laws. Some states have updated their language, but others still use the outdated term in laws or regulations.

Culturally, the word also became taboo. For a time, many people understood that using the R-word was cruel, outdated, and unacceptable.

Why Are People Using the R-Word Again?

Today, the social boundary around the R-word has weakened.

The R-word is showing up again in comedy, entertainment, politics, social media, and everyday conversation. Its return is being fueled by shock value, backlash, nostalgia, and a lack of understanding about the word’s history.

For many people with disabilities, the R-word is tied to real experiences of being mocked, excluded, underestimated, and treated as less human. This isn’t about asking for special treatment. It’s about taking people seriously when they tell us a word has harmed them. As people with IDD have shared in their own words, this word lands as a reminder of how often their humanity is questioned.

Is It Okay for TV Shows and Comedians to Use the R-Word?

Characters can say harmful things and comedians can push boundaries. Creative choices still matter.

When stand-up specials and popular shows like Euphoria use the R-word, the spread becomes especially powerful because of reach, influence, and social permission. It moves quickly from the screen into social media, school hallways, group chats, and speech.

Some people will say this is just how people talk now. That’s not the full story.

Pop culture doesn’t just mirror what people say. It helps decide what feels acceptable to repeat. When writers, performers, and comedians fold the R-word into dialogue, they’re normalizing it. Creative work can be funny, honest, and memorable without making people with disabilities the collateral damage.

Why Does It Matter if You Use the R-Word?

Even today, people with IDD face serious barriers in education, employment, healthcare, housing, transportation, public benefits, and community life. The R-word isn’t the only problem, but if inclusion matters, the words we excuse matter too.

The words we normalize shape what people believe. What people believe shapes how they treat others. And how people are treated shapes whether people with disabilities are included, hired, taught, supported, believed, and respected.

Stopping the use of the R-word won’t solve every barrier people with disabilities face, but continuing to use it makes existing barriers harder to break down and creates new ones. Language matters because the words we accept determine whose dignity is protected and whose is dismissed.

What Should I Say Instead of the R-Word?

The best replacement for the R-word is more honest language.

If something is frustrating, say frustrating. If it’s reckless, say reckless. If it’s unfair, say unfair. If it’s confusing, say confusing. If someone made a bad decision, say that.

The English language is big enough. You don’t need a slur to make a point.

Read our explainer on what to say instead of the R-word and how to respond when others use it.

Frequently Asked Questions About the R-Word

Is the R-word a slur?

Yes. The R-word is a slur rooted in the history of intellectual disability and widely used to demean people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It’s harmful because it uses disability as an insult.

Why is the R-word harmful if I don’t mean people with disabilities?

Because using the R-word as a punchline or put-down still uses disability as the insult. You may not mean to hurt people with disabilities, but the word still does harm.

What is the history of the R-word?

The R-word started as a word meaning delay, became a medical and legal label for people with intellectual disabilities, and later became a common insult used to demean people across the broader IDD community.

Was the R-word once a medical term?

Yes. It was once used in medical, educational, and institutional settings to describe people with intellectual disabilities.

Why are people saying the R-word again?

The social boundary around the R-word has weakened. Pop culture, comedy, politics, and social media are helping make the word feel casual again, even though people with disabilities have long made clear that it causes harm.

What did Rosa’s Law do?

Rosa’s Law changed many areas of federal law by replacing the outdated term with “intellectual disability.” It did not change state or local laws.

Picture of the U.S. Department of Education building in Washington, DC

Moving Special Education and Civil Rights Out of Education Department Risks a Patchwork of Rights for Students With Disabilities

/in , , /by Jackie Dilworth

Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced plans to move the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The Arc of the United States warns that the move disregards federal law placing the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the Department of Education and would make it harder for students with disabilities to access services, resolve discrimination, and hold states accountable under IDEA, the 50-year-old law that guarantees a free appropriate public education tailored to each child’s unique needs.

This plan follows interagency agreements announced in November 2025 that began shifting major Education Department programs to other federal agencies. But these offices are supposed to work together. Students with disabilities need access to school, special education services, accommodations, accessibility, and civil rights enforcement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Moving that work across separate departments risks more confusion, longer delays, and less accountability for families and schools.

The Education Department says OSERS and OCR will keep their legal responsibilities and continue their work without interruption. Calling this a partnership doesn’t change what’s happening: core education and civil rights functions would be moved into agencies that weren’t created to oversee schools, special education, or education-based civil rights enforcement.

“Students with disabilities don’t experience school in agency silos,” said Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States and former Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the U.S. Department of Education. “A student who is denied services, disciplined for disability-related needs, or blocked from an accessible classroom needs one federal education system that can see the whole picture and act. Moving special education to HHS and civil rights enforcement to DOJ would split apart the offices responsible for making disability rights real in schools, leaving families chasing answers across the federal government instead of getting accountability from one education agency.”

“HHS and DOJ have important roles, but they weren’t built to replace the Department of Education’s school-specific expertise,” said Robyn Linscott, Director of Education and Family Policy at The Arc of the United States. “Moving IDEA oversight into HHS pushes students with disabilities toward a medical model, where disability is treated as a diagnosis to manage instead of a natural part of human life. When that mindset drives education decisions, students are more likely to be segregated, underestimated, or treated as separate from the school community. IDEA belongs in an education agency because it is about classrooms, IEP meetings, behavior support, accessibility, and whether students can learn alongside their peers.”

Why OSERS and OCR belong inside the Education Department

OSERS has two primary components: the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). OSERS oversees federal programs that shape the school experience for students with disabilities and help students move from school to work and community life. It distributes federal special education funding, provides guidance to states and schools, supports teacher training, funds research on effective instruction, and helps ensure students receive the services they are legally entitled to receive.

OCR investigates discrimination in schools, including disability discrimination involving accommodations, accessibility, harassment, restraint and seclusion, and discriminatory discipline. For many families, OCR is one of the few ways to seek federal enforcement without going straight to court.

Why IDEA belongs in an education agency

IDEA is an education and civil rights law. It was created because children with disabilities were excluded from public schools, denied instruction, or sent to institutions instead of being educated in their communities.

Moving IDEA oversight into the Department of Health and Human Services risks changing how the federal government understands and responds to students with disabilities. Instead of focusing on classroom access, instruction, inclusion, services, and school accountability, it could push decisions toward diagnosis, treatment, and care management. Students with disabilities may need health care and related services, but they are students first.

That distinction matters. A medical model can lead to lower expectations, more segregation, and decisions based on diagnosis instead of what a student needs to learn and participate in school. IDEA’s promise depends on schools seeing students with disabilities as full members of the school community. That work must stay connected to the federal education systems that guide schools, support educators, and hold states accountable.

What this could mean for families

Families already spend months, sometimes years, trying to get schools to follow the law. Splitting special education and civil rights enforcement across agencies could add another layer of confusion when students can’t afford to wait.

For families of students with disabilities, this could mean:

  • More confusion about where to go when a child is denied services or accommodations
  • Longer delays when a student is missing instruction, therapies, supports, or accessible materials
  • Less coordination between special education oversight and civil rights enforcement
  • More barriers when a student faces harassment, exclusion, restraint, seclusion, or discriminatory discipline

A student’s education shouldn’t depend on whether their family can figure out which federal agency now owns which piece of the law.

What this could mean for schools and states

Schools and state education agencies need clear, consistent federal guidance. Moving OSERS to HHS and OCR to DOJ could make it harder for states and districts to understand expectations and resolve problems early. This plan could lead to:

  • Conflicting guidance from different federal agencies
  • Slower answers on IDEA and Section 504 questions
  • Less coordination between funding, technical assistance, and enforcement
  • More uneven implementation across states
  • Greater risk that families in different places receive different levels of protection

Federal disability rights shouldn’t depend on a student’s ZIP code or on which agency happens to hold part of the responsibility.

Students can’t get back lost learning time

The Department of Education’s special education and civil rights offices have been weakened by staff cuts, office closures, and delays in enforcement. Recent reports and staffing changes have shown what happens when federal capacity shrinks: complaints take longer, guidance becomes less clear, and families are left wondering whether anyone is responsible for enforcing the law.

When a student with a disability goes without the services, accommodations, accessible materials, instruction, or behavior supports they need, the impact can last a lifetime, shaping whether they graduate, continue their education, find work, participate in their community, and feel like school is a place they belong.

Moving these offices out of the Department of Education would deepen that instability at the exact moment students, families, schools, and states need clarity. The rights in IDEA and Section 504 haven’t changed, but rights are only as strong as the systems that enforce them.

Why The Arc is taking action

The Arc has fought for the education rights of students with disabilities for decades. Our advocacy helped lay the groundwork for IDEA, and we have worked ever since to protect and strengthen the systems that make that law real for students and families.

The Arc is also a plaintiff in Somerville Public Schools et al. v. Trump et al., a federal lawsuit challenging efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. We joined that case because weakening federal education capacity threatens special education oversight, civil rights enforcement, and the ability of students with disabilities to access the education federal law promises them.

The Arc’s policy and legal advocacy teams continue to meet with policymakers and education officials to protect IDEA, Section 504, and the federal infrastructure students with disabilities rely on.

We urge Congress to step in immediately, assert its constitutional role over federal agencies, and keep critical education and civil rights programs where the law says they belong. Students’ rights may remain in statute, but those rights are only meaningful when families can access the systems that enforce them.

For reporters: interview availability

The Arc can connect reporters with national policy experts who can explain the impact of this decision on students with disabilities nationwide.

Robyn Linscott, Director of Education and Family Policy at The Arc of the United States, is available for interviews on what this move means for students with disabilities, families, schools, IDEA, Section 504, and federal civil rights enforcement.

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States and former Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary in OSERS, is also available for interviews on the history and federal role of special education oversight.

More on the dismantling of the Department of Education

Picture of medical equipment on a white table including a mask, syringes and a stethoscope

NIH v. APHA Explained: Cancelled NIH Grants Harder to Restore

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

In August 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for health researchers to restore NIH grants that were canceled under the Trump administration’s new funding directives. In National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the Court said challenges to the government’s broader guidance can likely still move forward in federal district court, but claims at getting terminated grant funding back belong in the Court of Federal Claims instead. That means many researchers may have to fight on two fronts just to challenge one set of decisions, creating a slower and more complicated path for restoring research that can improve and save lives.

What is NIH v. APHA and Why Does it Matter?

This case is about whether researchers can go to go court when the federal government suddenly changes course and cancels already-awarded health research grants.

That may sound technical, but the stakes are high. In early 2025, the NIH issued internal guidance saying it would no longer fund research tied to topics the administration opposed, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) objectives, gender identity, and COVID-19. The NIH then terminated almost 2,000 grants that had already been funded for research related to those topics. The Supreme Court’s ruling affects how researchers can challenge those actions and how difficult it will be to get funding restored when grants are cut off.

What Happened in NIH v. APHA?

Researchers and organizations including the American Public Health Association sued in federal district court in Massachusetts after the NIH abruptly canceled grants and issued guidance directing institutes to stop funding certain research. The plaintiffs argued that the guidance and the grant terminations were unlawful.

The District Court judge sided with the plaintiffs, finding the agency’s actions unlawful and “arbitrary and capricious.” The defendants then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and asked the court to stop (or “stay”) the District Court’s order while the appeal moved forward. The First Circuit refused, finding the defendants hadn’t shown it was likely to win an appeal. The federal government then went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket and asked the justices to block the lower court’s order. Because this came through the emergency process, there was no oral argument before the Court acted.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in NIH v. APHA?

The Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request in part and denied it in part. The justices allowed the legal challenge to the NIH’s guidance to continue, but they said the District Court didn’t have jurisdiction to order relief tied to the terminated grants themselves. In practical terms, that means researchers who want the grants reinstated have to pursue that part of the fight in the Court of Federal Claims rather than in District Court.

That split matters because the two courts offer different kinds of relief. District Courts can decide whether agency action was unlawful and can issue remedies like blocking unlawful guidance. The Court of Federal Claims, by contrast, is built for money claims against the government. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this creates what she called a “bizarre claim-splitting regime” that could leave plaintiffs without effective relief at all. Justice Jackson puts a fine point on the consequences of this decision:

“For the Government, the incremental expenditure of money is at stake. For plaintiffs and the public, scientific progress itself hangs in the balance—along with the lives that progress saves. Make no mistake: Per the evidence in front of the District Court, the forward march of scientific discovery will not only be halted—it will be reversed.”

A later agreement required the NIH to give some stalled applications a new, good-faith review, but it didn’t undo the Supreme Court’s ruling on terminated grants. The larger legal fight over the District Court’s decision also continued after oral argument in the First Circuit in January 2026.

Why The Arc Supports Federal Funding for Health Research

The Arc’s position statement on research is clear: applied and basic research related to intellectual and/or developmental disabilities must be adequately funded, designed around topics that matter to people with disabilities and their families, and conducted in ways that improve people’s lives. Research helps promote independence, improve quality of life, strengthen services and supports, and identify better educational, social, and clinical interventions. When the government abruptly cuts off that funding, it doesn’t just disrupt grants. It disrupts knowledge, innovation, and progress for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Why NIH v. APHA Matters for People With Disabilities

This case matters because disability research is part of the larger web of health research that was disrupted. The terminated grants included studies on reproductive decision-making among women with developmental disabilities that affect cognition and a psychosocial intervention for autistic adults who are sexual and gender minorities, along with research related to kidney disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, and HIV.

When research funding stops, research often stops with it. And when the path to restoring that funding becomes slower and more fragmented, fewer researchers may have the time or resources to challenge unlawful terminations. That means less research, less innovation, and less understanding of the health needs of people with disabilities in the future.

Where Can I Learn More About NIH v. APHA?

NIH v. APHA FAQ: Research Funding, Federal Courts, and Disability Research

What is NIH v. APHA about?

It’s about where researchers can go to court when the NIH cancels already-awarded grants and changes its funding rules.

What did the Supreme Court decide in NIH v. APHA?

The Court said the challenge to the NIH’s guidance can continue in District Court, but claims seeking restoration of terminated grant funding likely belong in the Court of Federal Claims.

Why does NIH v. APHA matter for people with disabilities?

Because disability research is part of the health research affected by these funding cuts, and making grants harder to restore can slow or stop research that people with disabilities depend on.

Written by: Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel at The Arc of the United States

Picture of a hospital or nursing home hallway with white walls and white floors

Brown v. DC: Why This Community Integration Case Matters for People With Disabilities

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

More than 25 years after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with disabilities are still fighting for the right to live in the community instead of being unnecessarily stuck in institutions. In Brown v. DC, that fight is playing out in the nation’s capital. In late 2024, a federal district court ruled that Washington, DC, was failing people with physical disabilities living in nursing facilities by not giving them enough information about community options, not providing effective transition help, and not maintaining an effective Olmstead plan.

DC has now appealed, and The Arc recently filed an amicus brief urging the DC Circuit to uphold that ruling.

What is Brown v. DC and why does it matter?

This case is about whether DC is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) integration mandate by unnecessarily keeping people with physical disabilities in nursing facilities instead of helping them move into community-based living.

That matters because the Supreme Court made clear in Olmstead that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination. Federal disability law requires public systems to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to a person’s needs. In plain terms: if a person with a disability can live in the community with the right supports, the government cannot simply leave them in an institution because that’s easier or more familiar.

How did Brown v. DC reach this appeal?

This lawsuit began in 2010 when advocates sued DC for failing to help nursing facility residents with physical disabilities transition into the community. In 2014, the district court certified a class of people with physical disabilities receiving long-term care in nursing facilities who were eligible for community-based services, wanted to live in the community, and needed help from DC to get there. The case first went to trial in 2017, and the district court ruled in favor of DC Plaintiffs appealed, and in 2019 the DC Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that the district court had used the wrong legal standard and sending the case back for another trial.

After that retrial, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs in December 2024. The court found that DC had failed to inform nursing facility residents about community-based options, failed to help them access the services and housing they needed to leave, and failed to maintain an effective Olmstead plan. DC appealed again, and that’s the case now before the DC Circuit.

What did the District Court find in Brown v. DC?

The district court’s 2024 ruling was a major win because it focused on concrete barriers that keep people trapped in nursing facilities.

The court found that DC wasn’t doing enough to tell residents they had options outside an institution. It also found that DC wasn’t providing effective transition assistance and was relying too heavily on nursing facilities themselves instead of taking responsibility as the government entity running the system. And it found that DC didn’t have an effective, working Olmstead plan for helping people move into the community

What is The Arc arguing in Brown v. DC?

The Arc and its co-amici argue that the district court got it right. The brief says DC is violating its integration obligations and that the remedy ordered by the district court is both appropriate and necessary. That includes requiring DC to provide meaningful information to people in nursing facilities, strengthen transition services, and build enough community-based long-term care and housing capacity so people can actually leave institutions.

The issue isn’t just whether people technically qualify for community living. It’s whether the system gives them a real path to get there.

Why The Arc supports strong community integration obligations

Although this case focuses on people with physical disabilities, the stakes are broader. When DC fails to maintain an effective Olmstead plan, that failure affects all people with disabilities who are unnecessarily segregated in institutions. A stronger system for helping people leave nursing facilities and move into the community would benefit many disabled people across the District, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The Arc strongly supports community-based services that allow people with IDD to live and thrive outside institutional settings. Our position statements on Long-Term Supports and Services and Human and Civil Rights make that clear: people with disabilities have a right to the supports they need to live in the community, those services must be delivered in the most integrated setting, and reliance on institutions cannot be a substitute for successful community living.

Why community integration matters for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

This case matters because the right to live in the community is bigger than any one disability group. When DC fails to help people leave nursing facilities, it strengthens a system that keeps disabled people segregated instead of supported.

That’s why this case matters for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, too. For decades, The Arc has fought for community living, not institutionalization. A strong ruling here would reinforce a simple but important principle: governments must do more than say community living is possible. They must provide the housing, services, and transition support that make it real.

Where can I learn more about Brown v. DC?

You can learn more on The Arc’s Brown v. DC resource page and from broader federal guidance on Olmstead and community integration.

Brown v. DC FAQs: Olmstead, Nursing Facilities, and Community Living

What is Brown v. DC about?

It is about whether DC is unlawfully keeping people with physical disabilities in nursing facilities instead of helping them move into the community.

What’s an Olmstead plan?

It’s a state or local government’s working plan for helping people with disabilities move from institutions into more integrated community settings, as required by federal disability law.

Why does this case matter beyond people with physical disabilities?

Because if DC isn’t meeting its community integration obligations, that can affect other people with disabilities too, including people with IDD who need services and supports to live in the community.