Over a dozen states are seeking to invalidate one of the nation’s key disability rights laws, advocates are warning, jeopardizing access to health care, education and more.

A lawsuit brought by Texas and 16 other states is calling for an end to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The 1973 law bars discrimination on the basis of disability at any entity that receives federal funds.

The suit known as Texas v. Becerra was filed in response to an update to Section 504 regulations that was finalized by the Biden administration last year. With the litigation, the states are looking to ensure that gender dysphoria does not qualify as a disability under the rule. However, in challenging the regulations, the states’ lawsuit asks the court to “declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional” in its entirety.

“If this happens, it would be a disaster for disabled people and everything from education to employment would be negatively impacted,” said Maria Town, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities.

Section 504 has a broad reach, extending to health care, public education, housing, transportation and much more, advocates say. While many students with disabilities are covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, federal figures show that 3% of students are served under Section 504 alone.

The latest 504 regulations clarified that medical providers cannot make treatment decisions based on disability biases, expanded the availability of accessible medical diagnostic equipment and set expectations for accessibility on providers’ websites and mobile applications, among other changes.

If the court were to determine that Section 504 is unconstitutional, disability advocates are concerned that the basis of such a decision could also undermine other laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“If the judge were to adopt it, and actually declare the statute unconstitutional, it could portend that other anti-discrimination statutes based on race and sex and ethnicity are also unconstitutional for the same reason,” Steven Schwartz, senior counsel at the Center for Public Representation, said during a recent webinar. “And because there’s provisions in the regulations that tie together, that link 504 and the ADA, and prohibitions on race and sex discrimination, it links them all in how they’re enforced. Striking down the rule might imperil the ADA as well.”

Schwartz described that scenario as “simply frightening.”

Now, disability advocates across the nation are calling for states to back out of the litigation. And, facing significant pressure, the attorneys general are attempting to distance themselves from the suit’s request to overturn Section 504.

“Plaintiffs clarify that they have never moved — and do not plan to move — the court to declare or enjoin Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as unconstitutional on its face,” reads a joint status report the states filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Wednesday.

The attorneys general indicated in the filing that they are continuing to evaluate their position in light of a recent executive order President Donald Trump issued on gender ideology. But, a statement from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office said that the filing is “a big step towards this lawsuit winding down and going away entirely.”

However, the latest filing is not easing concerns from advocates.

“Despite representations from several attorneys general that the lawsuit would be dropped, they’d withdraw from the lawsuit or they’d withdraw the constitutional challenge to Section 504, none of that occurred. They did not file an amended complaint, so the claims and scope of the case remain unchanged,” said Alison Barkoff, a professor at George Washington University who led the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on Community Living under the Biden administration.

Rather, Barkoff said that the filing actually doubles down on the states’ constitutional claim.

“As an example, they claim the rule’s requirement to provide services in the ‘most integrated setting’ consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. is unconstitutional,” Barkoff said. “If a court were to agree with them, not only would it undermine 25 years of progress through Olmstead enforcement but it would also mean that Section 504 would not apply to entities that receive federal health care, education, housing or transportation funding.”

In addition to Texas and South Carolina, the other states involved in the lawsuit are Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

The case is currently paused, with another update expected in a month.

(Updated: February 20, 2025 at 11:20 p.m. ET)