Skip to main content

The Washington Connection 7-21-26

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 July 21, 2026. Messages 1, 3, 4 and 8 are new.

Thank you for calling the Washington Connection.

Missouri Drops Out of Texas v. Kennedy Lawsuit

 

We are very pleased to announce that Missouri has dropped out of the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit which aims to weaken disability rights by attacking Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in Olmstead v. LC. Now that Missouri has withdrawn, only five states remain part of this lawsuit fighting against the rights of people with disabilities to live and receive care in their communities. Only a fraction of the 17 original states remains in the lawsuit, and almost half of the 9 states who filed the amended complaint earlier this year have dropped out so far. Congratulations to the Missouri advocates who have worked incredibly hard to get their state to drop out of this damaging lawsuit!

We have heard that there may be some additional states which may also be withdrawing from the case soon! We will continue to update you as we learn more. If you live in one of the remaining states that are part of this case, we strongly encourage you to continue to contact your governor and your state attorney general to tell them they should drop out! The remaining states are: Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, and Texas. Below you will find the contact info for each office. Thank you!

Alaska Governor's Office: 907-465-3500

Alaska Attorney General's Office: 907-269-5100

Florida Governor's Office: 850-717-9337

Florida Attorney General's Office: 850-414-3300

Louisiana Governor's Office: 225-342-0991

Louisiana Attorney General's Office: 877-297-0995

Montana Governor's Office: 406-444-3111

Montana Attorney General's Office: 406-444-2026

Texas Governor's Office: 512-463-2000

Texas Attorney General's Office: 512-463-2100

 

ACB Comments Cited in Draft FCC Report

 

As part of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), which was passed in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is required to send a report to Congress every two years regarding the accessibility and usability of telecommunications and advanced communication services and equipment. Part of the FCC's process in compiling these biennial reports is that they will accept public comments regarding the implementation of the CVAA. As an organization that was instrumental in getting the CVAA passed, ACB submitted comments to the FCC at the end of April. You can read our comments linked on the advocacy webpage here: https://www.acb.org/advocacy

The FCC just released an updated draft of their report to Congress, and we are proud to share that ACB's comments were cited throughout the report. While it is important to note that this is not the final report which will be sent to Congress, ACB is pleased that the FCC took our comments seriously and incorporated them into the latest draft. Anyone interested in the draft report can download it in Word, PDF, or TXT format here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/2026-cvaa-biennial-report-tentative-findings

ACB looks forward to submitting additional comments for the next draft of the report. Additional comments are due on August 10, 2026.

 

Trump Removes Two from Election Assistance Commission

 

On July 9, 2026, President Trump removed two Democratic commissioners from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). At the same time, one of the Republican commissioners resigned from the EAC. The fourth member of the commission, a Republican, had already resigned earlier this year. The result of these changes means that there are currently no commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission. 

The EAC was established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. This bipartisan, independent commission is charged with adopting voting system guidelines, providing information regarding election administration, certifying voting systems, and auditing HAVA funds. As part of these duties, the EAC promulgates clearinghouse resources regarding accessible voting, including how to calculate how many accessible voting machines should be at a given polling place, best practices for accessible communications around elections, and checklists that election officials can use to evaluate the accessibility of the polling places that they run. It is unclear how this move will affect the midterm elections, if at all. We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as they occur.

A news article on this move can be found here: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/09/nx-s1-5887690/trump-election-assistance-commission

 

Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act Passed the Senate, Now Heading to the House

 

The Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2025 was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. The bipartisan bill now goes to the House of Representatives. The Older Americans Act was first passed in 1965 to provide necessary services for Americans age 60 and older. These services include programs to prevent elder abuse, aging and disability resource centers, and funding for home delivery of meals. While we recognize that this bill has much room for improvement regarding the provision of blindness services, the programs in the bill are important, and we are happy to see movement on the bill after more than a year had passed since its introduction. 

You can learn more about the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2025 here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2120

 

Integration Mandate in Section 504, Olmstead Decision in Question

 

On June 18, 2026, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memo regarding the integration mandate in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. LC. This integration mandate is currently at issue in the case of Texas v. Kennedy. In context, the integration mandate is the right of individuals with disabilities to receive care in the most integrated setting that is appropriate, rather than being forced into restrictive settings such as nursing homes, hospitals, and institutions.

The Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ provides legal advice to the President and executive agencies. 

This memo argues three main points. First, the OLC argues that neither Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act nor Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) imposed an integration mandate on states in their treatment of people who have mental health disabilities. Second, the OLC argues that if a law like Section 504 or the ADA did impose an integration mandate, then that law would raise serious constitutional concerns regarding Congress's power. Finally, the OLC argues that in Olmstead v. LC, the Supreme Court did not find that Section 504 or the ADA required states to treat people with mental health disabilities in the most integrated setting that is appropriate to their needs.

ACB is deeply troubled by the arguments that OLC makes in this memo. Although on the surface it seems to exclusively attack the integration mandate as it concerns individuals with mental health disabilities, this memo is functionally attacking the rights of all individuals with disabilities to live in their communities without fear of institutionalization. In addition, the interpretation of the laws, regulations, and court decisions in this OLC memo is simply incorrect. The memo even acknowledges that OLC's view of Olmstead is, "out of step with common understanding of that decision within federal courts," (Page 11). ACB is concerned about the implications of releasing this memo and will closely follow any updates that result.

A link to the memo can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1446701/dl

 

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

 

Justice Department Deems Major ADA Guidance ‘Not Enforceable’

By Michelle Diament
Originally printed in “The Disability Scoop.”

​

​WASHINGTON, July 20, 2026 —The Trump administration is tossing aside key guidance that federal officials have used to steer enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act for more than a decade.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a notice Monday clarifying that its long-standing guidance on enforcement of the ADA’s integration mandate and Olmstead v. L.C. is “not enforceable.”

“The department will not rely upon the Olmstead guidance in its enforcement of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” reads the notice from Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights.

At issue is a Q&A document from 2011 that was last updated in 2020 which details implementation of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision. The 1999 ruling found that “states are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities” so long as certain conditions are met.

The guidance details what qualifies as the most integrated setting under the ADA and Olmstead, who should be able to access services in the community and much more. Subsequent Justice Department guidance on employment for people with disabilities and other related issues relied on the Olmstead guidance and the agency said this week that “similar guidance documents are not enforceable.”

Officials indicated that they plan to “revisit” the Olmstead guidance in light of a 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on how courts should view agency guidance “to determine whether the Olmstead guidance is consistent with the ‘single, best meaning’ of the ADA.”

The Justice Department notes that the Q&A document itself indicates that it is not legally binding.

“Despite the non-enforceable nature of the Olmstead guidance, numerous courts have treated the Olmstead guidance as authoritative,” the Justice Department notice indicates. “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.”

The move to dissociate from the guidance comes roughly a month after the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo indicating that neither the ADA nor Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act “require states to treat mentally disabled patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” That stance runs counter to long-held interpretations of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision.

“The Department of Justice’s Olmstead guidance reflects the overwhelming consensus of courts in their interpretation of the requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504, their implementing regulations, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C.,” said Alison Barkoff, a professor at George Washington University who oversaw development of the guidance when she served as the Justice Department’s special counsel for Olmstead enforcement. “Today’s notice from DOJ that it will no longer rely on the guidance is further evidence of their backing away from a decades-long commitment to enforcing the rights of people with disabilities to live and participate in their communities.”

Notably, the first Trump administration was responsible for the 2020 update to the Olmstead guidance that the Justice Department is now calling unenforceable, said Regan Rush, former chief of the special litigation section at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division who is currently tracking changes in the division’s policies as director and editor-in-chief of Red Line for Civil Rights at Democracy Forward.

“That guidance has stood the test of time. It is grounded in decisions by courts across the country and has been relied upon by states and the federal government alike since 2011,” Rush said. “States that follow DOJ’s cue and abandon their integration efforts risk violating the rights of people with disabilities, and they will have to answer for it in courts that have upheld Olmstead for decades.”

In the immediate, the Justice Department notice “is likely to create further uncertainty and confusion among stakeholders in the wake of DOJ’s June memo saying that there is no integration mandate,” said Jennifer Mathis, who served as deputy assistant attorney general for the agency’s Civil Rights Division under the Biden administration and is now deputy director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “Neither of these things has the force of law, but they appear designed to undermine the rights of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities. The disability community will continue to fight these attacks on their hard-won rights.”

The Justice Department did not respond to questions about the changes.