A picture of prison bars up close with a brick floor

Hamm v. Smith Explained: Can IQ Scores Alone Determine Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases?

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

In Hamm v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a closely watched death penalty case about how courts should evaluate intellectual disability. The case asked whether courts can consider multiple IQ test scores as part of a full clinical assessment when deciding whether a person is intellectually disabled and therefore protected from execution under the Eighth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision issued on May 21, 2026, the Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices decided they shouldn’t have agreed to hear it in the first place. As a result, the Court didn’t answer the underlying question, leaving uncertainty about how courts should use multiple IQ scores in future death penalty cases involving intellectual disability.

Bottom line: The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether courts can rely on multiple IQ scores when determining intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

What is Hamm v. Smith about?

Before the Supreme Court dismissed the case, Hamm v. Smith asked an important question about how courts determine whether a person has intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

That question matters because the Supreme Court has already ruled that executing a person with an intellectual disability is unconstitutional. In Hamm v. Smith, the issue wasn’t whether that protection exists. It was how courts should apply it. More specifically, the case asked whether courts can consider multiple IQ test scores as part of a full clinical evaluation, or whether they should give too much weight to the numbers alone.

The Court agreed to review “whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.”

Can a state execute a person with an intellectual disability?

No. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disability. Later decisions reinforced that courts cannot use an overly rigid or outdated approach when deciding whether someone has an intellectual disability. In Hall v. Florida in 2014, the Court rejected a strict cutoff based only on IQ test scores. In Moore v. Texas in 2017, the Court ruled that courts must use clinical standards, not stereotypes or non-clinical assumptions.

Those rulings are consistent with how intellectual disability is actually diagnosed by experts. It’s not determined by an IQ test alone. Clinicians look at the whole picture, including intellectual functioning, adaptive functioning, and whether the disability began during the developmental period. IQ tests can be part of that picture, but they aren’t the whole picture.

A person may take multiple IQ tests throughout their life. Those scores can be helpful, but they don’t replace clinical judgment. Different tests can produce somewhat different results, and an outlier score doesn’t automatically tell the full story. Courts should look at all the relevant evidence, including how a person functions in daily life.

How did Hamm v. Smith reach the Supreme Court?

Joseph Smith was convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia. After Atkins, Mr. Smith sought post-conviction relief, arguing that he has intellectual disability and cannot be executed.

In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in his favor. The court considered Mr. Smith’s history of adaptive deficits dating back to grade school, where he was evaluated for special education services. It also considered five IQ tests, four of which had scores in the low-to-mid 70s. The court concluded that the evidence, viewed together, supported a finding of intellectual disability.

Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court. In November 2024, the Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Eleventh Circuit and asked it to clarify how it used Mr. Smith’s multiple IQ scores. The Eleventh Circuit said it had looked holistically at his scores, not by relying on the lowest score alone. Alabama appealed again, and in June 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on a limited question about whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ test scores in an Atkins claim.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Hamm v. Smith?

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith instead of deciding the question it had agreed to review. The Court’s full order was one sentence: it dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices concluded they shouldn’t have taken it in the first place. As a result, the lower court’s ruling stands, and Joseph Smith remains protected from execution under the Eighth Amendment.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, wrote separately to explain why dismissal was appropriate. She said the case wasn’t the right vehicle for resolving how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores in death penalty cases. In her view, the parties agreed on an important point: courts can consider multiple IQ scores when determining whether a person has an intellectual disability. She also explained that the lower courts hadn’t actually decided the broader legal rule Alabama wanted the Supreme Court to announce. Because of that, she concluded the Court couldn’t properly answer that question here.

Justice Sotomayor also underscored a key point The Arc raised in its amicus brief: intellectual disability cannot be reduced to IQ scores alone. Citing disability and clinical experts, she wrote that “IQ test scores cannot stand alone” and must be considered alongside other evidence, including adaptive functioning and the person’s day-to-day intellectual functioning.

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that Atkins v. Virginia was wrongly decided.

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Thomas, also dissented, arguing that the Court should have decided this case and given lower courts more guidance on how to use multiple IQ tests going forward.

What is The Arc’s view on intellectual disability and the death penalty?

The Arc’s position is clear: no person with intellectual disability should be executed, and states must use fair, accurate procedures that follow accepted clinical standards when deciding whether a person has an intellectual disability. Here’s more from our position statement on the criminal justice system:

When death penalty is an issue, individuals with intellectual disability… must: Continue to be exempt from the death penalty because existing case-by-case determinations of competence to stand trial, criminal responsibility, and mitigating factors at sentencing have proved insufficient to protect the rights of individuals with intellectual disability; Have access to expert witnesses and professionals who are knowledgeable about, as well as trained and experienced in, intellectual disability and who can accurately determine the presence and effects of intellectual disability; and [h]ave their intellectual disability determined by state procedures that are accurate… state procedures must be consistent with the national standards on making an intellectual disability determination and ensure that people with intellectual disability are not executed.

Since Atkins v. Virginia, The Arc has filed amicus briefs in every U.S. Supreme Court case involving the death penalty and intellectual disability, including Hamm v. Smith. In this case, The Arc argued that IQ tests have a built-in margin of error and cannot replace clinical judgment. Multiple IQ scores can make the analysis more complicated, especially when one score appears to be an outlier.

That’s why courts must look beyond numbers alone and consider the full clinical record, including adaptive functioning and other evidence of intellectual disability.

Why Hamm v. Smith matters for people with disabilities

This case matters because it’s about whether courts will follow science and accepted clinical standards when deciding who is protected from execution.

Intellectual disability is a lifelong condition. It cannot be reduced to a single IQ score. Experts have made clear that diagnosis requires a full evaluation, including intellectual functioning, adaptive functioning, and other evidence over time.

People with intellectual disability are at greater risk of being targeted, pressured, wrongfully convicted, and failed by the criminal legal system. Without fair, accurate, science-based standards, lives are at risk.

This case isn’t about excusing violent crime. People with intellectual disability can still be held accountable under the law. But the Constitution draws a clear line: people with intellectual disability cannot be executed.

Although the Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith without answering the question it agreed to review, existing constitutional protections remain in place.

Where can I learn more about Hamm v. Smith?

The Arc’s Hamm v. Smith Case Page

Hamm v. Smith FAQ: Intellectual Disability, IQ Scores, and the Death Penalty

Can a person with an intellectual disability be executed?

No. The Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the Constitution prohibits executing people with intellectual disability.

What is Hamm v. Smith about?

The case asked whether courts can solely consider multiple IQ scores when deciding whether a person has an intellectual disability in a death penalty case.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Hamm v. Smith?

In a 5-4 decision on May 21, 2026, the Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices decided they should not have taken it in the first place.

Why did the Supreme Court dismiss Hamm v. Smith?

A majority of the justices concluded this wasn’t the right case to resolve a broader rule about how courts should weigh multiple IQ scores. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the question Alabama wanted answered had not been properly decided in the lower courts.

Did the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Hamm v. Smith change the rule that people with intellectual disability cannot be executed?

No. The Supreme Court did not overturn Atkins v. Virginia. The constitutional rule remains the same: people with intellectual disability cannot be executed.

Why are IQ scores not enough by themselves?

Because intellectual disability is diagnosed using a full clinical assessment, not one number alone. Courts and clinicians must also consider adaptive functioning and other evidence.

Written by: Evan Monod, Staff Attorney for The Arc of the United States

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

Nine States, A Defining Civil Right: Here’s How Chapters Are Fighting Back

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

Update (May 18, 2026): Indiana has withdrawn from Texas v. Kennedy after sustained advocacy from The Arc of Indiana and disability advocates across the state. South Dakota has also dropped out of the case.

Seven states are still part of the case: Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and Texas.

Texas v. Kennedy is a lawsuit that targets Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 requires that any program or service supported with federal funding be accessible to people with disabilities. This case focuses on the rights of people with disabilities who want to live and get government-financed services in the community instead of being limited to receiving these services in a nursing home or other institutions.

This case has real stakes for millions of people with disabilities. It could weaken protections people rely on to stay in the community with the services they need.

Across these states, The Arc’s chapters are doing what they have always done best. They’re organizing, showing up, and refusing to let this happen quietly.

Texas: Making the stakes impossible to ignore

The Arc of Texas has pushed this fight into public view. They sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking Texas to withdraw, and issued a press release and an action alert urging calls and emails. They also produced a short video to drive public awareness and action.

It’s breaking through. Their work has generated coverage in NPR’s KERA News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Even more importantly, the Attorney General’s office received a significant surge of calls and emails from The Arc’s advocates, so much so that the phone line was intermittently disconnected. They’re asking advocates to keep going and not be silenced! They’re also working in partnership with Texas Advocates to elevate the perspectives of people with disabilities through new videos on why community living matters.

Indiana: A win powered by advocacy

Indiana is no longer part of this lawsuit, and that didn’t happen by accident.

The Arc of Indiana spent months pushing Indiana to back out, including direct conversations with Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and his team about what this case could mean for people with disabilities who rely on community-based services and civil rights protections.

On May 4, 2026, The Arc of Indiana announced that Attorney General Rokita has decided to withdraw Indiana from Texas v. Kennedy. This is exactly what strong grassroots advocacy can do: move a state from being part of the problem to protecting rights.

Louisiana: Coalition-building and accountability

The Arc of Louisiana convened a coalition, developed a fact sheet, and shared it widely across social media, with legislators, and with partners across the state. They have also pressed Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill directly, including following up after the state rejoined the lawsuit.

Missouri: Turning silence into pressure

In Missouri, chapters are doing what grassroots advocacy demands: they’re escalating.

St. Louis Arc has already sent a letter to Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and copied Governor Mike Kehoe. Now they’re running a campaign that floods the Attorney General’s office with emails and phone calls from The Arc’s advocates, making it clear that Missouri must drop the lawsuit. The Arc of the Ozarks is also pushing for answers and pressing for access to decision makers, including through state legislative relationships.

Alaska and Florida: Building the groundwork

The Arc of Anchorage is working with Alaska’s disability community to coordinate a stronger response. They partnered with the Developmental Disabilities Association, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, and other stakeholders for a planning session, and they’ve reached out to Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox while continuing follow-up to secure a meeting.

The Arc of Florida is pushing for answers at stage agencies.

What you can do right now

If you live in one of the seven states still pushing this lawsuit, your call matters.

Call your state Attorney General and say: “Withdraw [STATE] from Texas v. Kennedy. People with disabilities should be able to live in the community with the supports that make life possible, and [STATE] should not be part of a lawsuit that puts that at risk.”

Then take one more step:

  • Ask two people in your state to call too.
  • Share this blog and tag your Attorney General’s office.

This is how change happens. Public pressure creates consequences, and it changes decisions. Help us protect rights that should never be treated as negotiable.

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

Texas and Eight Other States Renew Attack on Section 504 and the Right of Disabled People to Live in Their Communities

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

On January 23, 2026, Texas and eight other states—Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota—renewed their attack on Section 504 and the integration mandate. The integration mandate is a requirement under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It allows people with disabilities to receive services in the community rather than in institutions. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Olmstead v. L.C. (Lois Curtis) decision in 1999. We cannot let these states take away that right.

The nine states say that a rule about the integration mandate published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is unlawful and unconstitutional and should be blocked. The HHS rule says that state and local governments and any entity that gets HHS dollars must serve people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. The rule also says that entities may violate Section 504 when they place disabled people at serious risk of unnecessary institutionalization. The U.S. Department of Justice and many federal courts have said the same thing – that an entity can violate Section 504 when it fails to serve disabled people in the most integrated setting appropriate or when it puts them at serious risk of institutionalization.

If the states are successful in their challenge, it may be harder for disabled people to enforce their right to live and participate in the community. As a result, more people with disabilities may be forced into institutions when they can and want to live in the community instead. The disability community has fought long and hard for strong disability rights laws, and we cannot allow them to be weakened.

The states’ latest attack on disability rights is a revised version of the lawsuit Texas v. Kennedy (formerly Texas v. Becerra). In the earlier version of the case, Texas and 16 other states argued that Section 504 itself is unconstitutional and challenged updated Section 504 rules published by HHS in 2024. After outrage and advocacy from the disability community, the states withdrew their claim that Section 504 is unconstitutional. The remaining states continue to challenge the updated rules.

Eight states recently dropped out of the litigation after HHS proposed a package of three regulations aimed at the transgender community, including a regulation categorically excluding gender dysphoria from the protections of Section 504. Many disability groups, including the undersigned, have opposed this change to the Section 504 regulations.

In the new complaint, the states are now asking the court to:

  • declare that the entire Section 504 rule is unlawful,
  • stop HHS from enforcing the entire rule, and
  • stop HHS from telling states they cannot take actions that place people with disabilities at “serious risk” of institutionalization.

What Can I Do to Help?

We call on everyone in the nine states bringing this new attack on our autonomy and independence—Texas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota—to urge their governors and attorneys general to withdraw this lawsuit and stop attacking the right of people with disabilities to live and participate in their communities. Information about how to contact the attorneys general in these states can be found at dredf.org/protect-504.

This update was created by The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Justice in Aging, the National Health Law Program, with contributions by Alison Barkoff, Hirsh Health Law and Policy Associate Professor, George Washington University.

A picture of prison bars up close with a brick floor

Disability Advocates Warn: Supreme Court Case Could Open Door to Executing People With Intellectual Disability

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear Hamm v. Smith, a case that will determine how courts apply the death penalty to people with intellectual disability. At issue is whether judges must continue to follow established clinical standards or whether states can rely on a narrow focus on IQ scores.

Today, The Arc of the United States, joined by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the National Disability Rights Network, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold existing precedent and ensure that people with intellectual disability remain meaningfully protected from execution. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 2025.

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court recognized what Americans overwhelmingly believe: executing people with intellectual disability is cruel, unconstitutional, and serves no purpose. That protection was later reinforced in Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas, which directed courts to follow clinical science rather than stereotypes in diagnosing intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

Now, in Hamm v. Smith, those safeguards are at risk.

Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel for The Arc of the United States:
“It is settled law that executing people with intellectual disability is unconstitutional. People with intellectual disability have a specific condition, not a rote IQ number. Alabama is asking the court to erase that precedent and focus exclusively on IQ scores in evaluating whether a person has an intellectual disability. The state’s request would upend decades of precedent, ignore science, and put people with intellectual disability at risk of unlawful execution. An intellectual disability diagnosis requires a holistic and comprehensive evaluation conducted by qualified individuals. Lives are on the line.”

Why Hamm v. Smith should matter to everyone:

  • It’s about fairness. People with intellectual disability are more likely to be targeted, arrested, and wrongfully convicted. Without meaningful and science-based implementation of these protections, innocent lives could be lost.
  • It’s about science, not stereotypes. The clinical definition of intellectual disability has been developed over decades and includes a robust framework that must be used in the diagnostic process. Experts agree that diagnosis requires more than a single IQ score. Failing to ensure that courts follow clinical judgment would ignore science in favor of dangerous stereotypes.

This case is not about excusing violent crime. People with intellectual disability can and should be held accountable under the law. But intellectual disability is a lifelong, complex condition, and the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution draws a clear line: execution is off the table.

The Arc has fought for this safeguard for decades, including playing a critical role in Atkins. The organization and its partners will continue to fight to ensure that courts properly follow clinical judgment in defining intellectual disability in death penalty cases and that no person with intellectual disability is ever put to death in violation of the Constitution.

Media Contact:
Jackie Dilworth, The Arc of the United States, dilworth@thearc.org

###

About The Arc of the United States: 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 knew their disabled children deserved more, The Arc is now the largest grassroots organization for people with IDD with nearly 600 chapters in 48 states and Washington, DC. Together, we are promoting and protecting the rights of people with disabilities and supporting their inclusion throughout their lives—from education to employment to community living. There are approximately 7.4 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. Editor’s Note: The Arc is not an acronym; always refer to us as The Arc, not The ARC and never ARC. The Arc should be considered as a title or a phrase.

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

Supreme Court Clears Path for Dismantling of Education Department, Putting Students with Disabilities in Harm’s Way

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

In a fast-moving case with massive consequences for education, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education to continue while a legal challenge plays out. The decision came without a full hearing or written explanation, and it greenlights layoffs of federal employees that could devastate services for students with disabilities.

This ruling doesn’t end the case that’s still making its way through the courts, but it means the damage could happen now, before any final decision is made about the legal issues. Here’s what you need to know.

What is the McMahon v. New York Case About?

This case is about President Trump’s firing of the federal employees who staff the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”), and his March 2025 Executive Order announcing plans to fully dismantle it. The order, called “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities”, directs the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to close ED entirely.

ED plays a critical role in protecting and funding education for students with disabilities, including enforcing federal disability rights laws and providing special education funding to states.

What Happened Before the Supreme Court Got Involved?

  • March 2025: More than 1,400 employees (nearly half of ED’s workforce) were fired, that included the removal of essential staff who investigate complaints of discrimination on the basis of disability at the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and staff who provide expert advice about special education law and services at The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). In addition, the Trump Administration issued the executive order to dismantle the Department of Education this month.
  • May 2025: Groups of states, school districts, and teachers’ unions sued the federal government in two separate cases, saying that the administration doesn’t have the authority to eliminate a department created by Congress The case brought by the states (New York v. McMahon) was combined with the case brought by the school districts and teachers’ unions (Somerville Public Schools v. Trump). Now the combined case going forward is using the name New York v. McMahon.
  • Lower Courts: Both a district court and court of appeals sided against the Trump Administration, ordering the administration to rehire the affected employees while the case played out in the courts. The judges agreed that the administration could not close ED, as only Congress has the power to create or close federal agencies.
  • Appeal to the Supreme Court: The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause those orders so layoffs could go forward while the case was ongoing.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to continue to fire essential federal employees at ED even though the courts have not yet ruled in New York v. McMahon. Because this was an emergency (or “shadow”) docket decision, there was no public hearing and no opinion explaining the reasoning.

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

“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it…This decision is indefensible. It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out. The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.

Lifting the District Court’s injunction will unleash untold harm, delaying or denying educational opportunities and leaving students to suffer from discrimination, sexual assault, and other civil rights violations without the federal resources Congress intended.”

The Arc’s Position

The Arc believes every student with a disability has the right to a free, appropriate public education in an inclusive setting. The dismantling of the Department of Education undermines this right. Read more in our position statement on education.

Our CEO, Katy Neas (who served in senior leadership at ED), filed a declaration in this case, explaining that without meaningful staffing in ED’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), the federal government cannot effectively monitor or enforce disability rights in schools.

As she stated in the declaration:

“The dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education will have a devastating impact on The Arc’s members, people with IDD and their families. The weakening of federal oversight over special education and civil rights monitoring in schools threatens to take us back to a dark time in our nation’s history when students with disabilities were largely excluded from school, without rights or recourse.”

What Does This Mean for People with Disabilities?

This decision allows the dismantling of ED to move forward now, even though the underlying case hasn’t been decided. The firings included critical staff at OCR and OSERS. Without these staff, it will be harder to investigate discrimination in schools and help schools give students the supports they need.

Once the staff and infrastructure are gone, building them (if the plaintiffs ultimately win) will be slow and difficult. The case is still ongoing, but the Supreme Court’s temporary decision is a major blow to the stability and enforcement of education rights for children with disabilities nationwide.

Where Can I Learn More?

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

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 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