Skip to main content

The Washington Connection 9-3-26

Welcome to the Washington Connection, the legislative and information service of the American Council of the Blind. The Washington Connection is brought to you by the ACB national office. If you have any questions or comments on the information provided, don’t hesitate to contact us and ask to speak with Claire Stanley.

The Washington Connection is updated any time we have new information to share with you. The following articles are available as of September 3, 2026. Message 8 is new.

Thank you for calling the Washington Connection.

Accessible Medication Label Experiences at Walgreens

 

If you are blind or have low vision and have tried to get medication from a Walgreens pharmacy since August 2025, but were not provided an accessible medication label, or had an issue with the accessible medication label provided, we want to hear about your experience.

Please tell us:

  • When this happened (date or approximate timeframe)
  • Where it happened (Walgreens pharmacy location)
  • What happened, including what you requested and how the pharmacy responded
  • Whether you ultimately received an accessible label or another accessible way to identify your medication
  • If you did receive an accessible way of identifying your medication, whether you had any issues with quality or usability of the accessible way of identifying the medication

Your experience can help us understand whether Walgreens pharmacies are meeting their obligations to blind and low vision customers. Please email your responses to advocacy@acb.org.

 

New Speak4 Campaign for the Latonya Reeves Freedom Act

 

As many of our members know from our frequent posts about the Texas v. Kennedy case, the rights of people with disabilities to receive care in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs is currently getting a lot of attention. Although the Supreme Court has determined that these rights are found in the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, some are questioning this determination. In response, the Latonya Reeves Freedom Act was reintroduced in both the House and the Senate this summer. We are pleased to support that reintroduction with a Speak4 campaign, linked below. The Latonya Reeves Freedom Act would clarify and strengthen the integration mandate and affirm that people with disabilities have a right to receive care in the most integrated setting appropriate. 

Here is a link to the Speak4 campaign that you can use to tell your representatives to support this bill: https://speak4.app/lp/g301tsla?ts=1787163608

If you would like to read through the text of this bill, you can use this link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4865/text/is

 

VITAL Act Reintroduced in Congress

 

We are thrilled to announce that the Visitable Inclusive Tax Credits for Accessible Living (VITAL) Act has been reintroduced in Congress to combat the lack of affordable, accessible housing in the United States. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the Senate bill, S. 5285, with Sens. Tammy Duckworth, Andy Kim, Chris Van Hollen, and Peter Welch as original co-sponsors. Representatives Dwight Evans and Brian Fitzpatrick introduced the bipartisan House bill, H.R. 10049.

The VITAL Act would increase federal funding for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC), enabling housing developers to increase the number of accessible homes available throughout the nation. This bill would also require states to use federal funding to ensure that at least 40% of affordable homes are accessible or adaptable over a three-year period. Additional funding would also be provided for projects in rollable and walkable communities, making it possible for people with disabilities and seniors to access public transit and essential services independently.

If you would like to support this bill, you can use our new Speak4 campaign here: https://speak4.app/lp/d701lnut?ts=1787931391

To read the full text of the bill, visit: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/5285/text

The press releases from Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Evans can be found at the following links:

Senate press release from Senator Klobuchar: https://tinyurl.com/3x8xb447 

House press release from Representative Evans: https://tinyurl.com/5n8ycp2s 

 

Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act Heads to the House

In July, we announced that the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act had passed the Senate and is headed to the House of Representatives. Due to this exciting development, we have updated our Speak4 campaign for the OAA Reauthorization Act, so that Speak4 messages are sent to the House of Representatives instead of the Senate. We encourage everyone to tell their representatives to pass this vital piece of legislation! A link to the updated Speak4 campaign can be found here: https://speak4.app/lp/5p01rspz?ts=1785950066

 

Clarification on Department of Justice Guidance Titled, “Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C.”

 

As printed in the Federal Register, July 20, 2026.

The Department of Justice is issuing this document to clarify that the guidance issued by the Department on June 22, 2011, and last updated February 28, 2020, titled “Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C.” (Olmstead Guidance), and similar guidance documents are not enforceable. In addition, the Department plans to revisit the Olmstead Guidance in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024), to assess whether the Olmstead Guidance is consistent with the single best meaning of the relevant statutory text. The Department will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

On June 22, 2011, the Department issued a guidance document titled, “Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C.” The Olmstead Guidance states, “To assist individuals in understanding their rights under Title II of the ADA and its integration mandate, and to assist state and local governments in complying with the ADA, the Department of Justice has created this technical assistance guide.” It provides eighteen questions and answers regarding enforcement of the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 

The Olmstead Guidance concludes: “Guidance documents posted to this website are not intended to be a final agency action, have no legally binding effect, and have no force or effect of law. The documents may be rescinded or modified in the Department's complete discretion, in accordance with applicable laws. The Department's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedent.” This is consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has held that guidance documents “do not have the force and effect of law.” Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97 (2015) (quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995)). Despite the non-enforceable nature of the Olmstead Guidance, numerous courts have treated the Olmstead Guidance as authoritative. See Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231, 263 (2d Cir. 2016); Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 322 (4th Cir. 2013); Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 979 F.3d 426, 460-61 (6th Cir. 2020); Steimel v. Wernert, 823 F.3d 902, 914 (7th Cir. 2016); but see United States v. Mississippi, 82 F.4th 387, 393-94 (5th Cir. 2023). The Department is concerned about confusion over the non-enforceable nature of the Olmstead Guidance and issues this clarification that the Olmstead Guidance is not enforceable. 

Further, the Olmstead Guidance was issued prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 400, which held that agency interpretations must be consistent with the “single, best meaning” of the statute authorizing them. For these reasons, the Department plans to revisit the Olmstead Guidance in light of Loper Bright to determine whether the Olmstead Guidance is consistent with the “single, best meaning” of the ADA. The Department will not rely upon the Olmstead Guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the ADA.

For more information, visit https://tinyurl.com/3zwwusfh. 

 

Judge Halts Proposed Rule Regarding Mail-In Ballots

 

A federal judge has halted a proposed rule by the United States Postal Service which would restrict mail-in ballots. The proposed Rule would require, among other things, that states provide USPS with lists of voters who are eligible to receive mail-in ballots for federal elections. Then, USPS would be required to compare ballots they are sending out to those voter lists and could refuse to accept or deliver ballots that USPS determines do not comply with the new requirements.

The USPS was accepting comments on this issue through July 2, 2026. ACB already submitted comments to the USPS through the Federal register regarding our opposition to the Proposed Rule and how the Proposed Rule would likely disproportionately impact voters who are blind or have low vision. ACB's comments can be found on our website here: https://www.acb.org/advocacy

The judge has found that the USPS Proposed Rule would violate a current settlement agreement between the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and USPS. In the settlement agreement, which is in effect through the 2028 election, both parties stipulated that USPS agreed to "prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail." The NAACP argued that the Proposed Rule would violate that portion of the settlement agreement. The federal judge found in favor of the NAACP and granted their motion to enforce compliance with the settlement agreement.

The judge's opinion may be found at this link: https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/opinion.pdf

A news article regarding this matter can be found at this link: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5951135-judge-halts-usps-mailin-ballot/

 

Air Carrier Access Amendments Act Reintroduced in Congress

 

The Air Carrier Access Amendments Act was recently reintroduced in Congress. Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin have introduced the bill in the House and Senate, respectively. This legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to assess civil penalties for violations and refer patterns of discrimination to the Department of Justice. Additionally, this bill would grant individuals with disabilities whose rights are violated by an air carrier a private right of action in civil court. That means individuals would be able to sue the air carriers directly, which is not permitted under the current law.

The House press release for the bill reintroduction can be found here: https://titus.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5912

The Senate press release for the bill reintroduction can be found here: https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/news/press-releases/baldwin-duckworth-lead-bill-to-protect-and-expand-the-rights-of-airplane-passengers-with-disabilities

The text of the bill can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9373/text

A one-pager on the bill can be found here: https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/air_carrier_access_amendments_act_one-pager.pdf

Use the Speak4 link here to ask your Congressmembers to support the Air Carrier Access Amendments Act: https://speak4.app/lp/58012s4t?ts=1782401882

 

Update on the Texas v. Kennedy Lawsuit

 

On August 31, 2026, all parties still remaining in the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit filed a joint motion for entry of final judgement. The motion jointly filed by Texas, Florida, Alaska, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services asks the court to vacate all references to community integration throughout the 2024 HHS Section 504 regulations, including the complete integration provision found in those regulations. No other parts of the 2024 HHS Section 504 regulations would be affected if the court grants this joint motion, and the case of Texas v. Kennedy would be closed.

ACB is deeply concerned by this action from both the states and the federal government. People with disabilities deserve to receive care in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. This motion in opposition to the dignity and autonomy of people with disabilities is deeply troubling. 

To be clear, if the court grants this motion, the integration mandate, which is the right of people with disabilities to live in their communities, is still the law. This motion does not, and this ruling would not, change the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Disability discrimination is still prohibited. However, this motion does signal the federal government's intent to abandon its duty to enforce the law of the integration mandate. 

We will provide updates as this situation progresses. 

A statement from several prominent disability rights organizations can be found at the following link: https://dredf.org/statement-texas-v-kennedy-september-2026/

The joint motion can be found at the following link: https://dredf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/124.-Corrected-Jt-Mot-for-Entry-Final-J-Access-Pass.pdf