Coalition Suing Against Unlawful Biden Administration Rule Files Report with Court Clarifying That Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is Not Being Challenged

Griffin: ‘Threatening Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in its entirety was never our goal nor was it something we sought, despite what some have said in the media and online’

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin issued the following statement after he and the coalition of 16 other attorneys general who last year sued the Biden administration over an unlawful federal rule clarified their position with a filing in court:

“As I have reiterated over the past week, from the beginning, our lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s rule categorizing gender dysphoria as a disability was about just that: challenging that specific rule. Threatening Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in its entirety was never our goal, nor was it something we sought, despite what some have said in the media and online. But to ensure all stakeholders involved are comfortable and are clear about the 17 states’ intent, we have filed a status report with the court with the following language:

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. Plaintiffs have not sought and do not seek to enjoin the disbursement of funds from the Department on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional.

The context of the entire Complaint, ECF No. 1, shows that the meaning and scope of Count 3 asserting a claim under the Spending Clause—and the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the demand—is an as-applied challenge to any purported application of Section 504 to funds that are not authorized by the Rehabilitation Act. Such alleged unconstitutional applications include the requirements the Final Rule imposes on recipients to adopt the “most integrated setting” and the “at serious risk of institutionalization” standards of care. 89 Fed. Reg. 40,066, 40,183, 40,120–21, 40,192 (May 9, 2024).

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks to restrain the disbursement of federal funds from the Department on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional, or to otherwise prevent the Federal Government from allocating spending or applying the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act to any recipients of such funds.

“Also, it deserves mention that the lawsuit is stayed pending review of the rule by the Trump administration. I am confident the administration will soon abandon Biden’s blatantly unlawful interpretation of Section 504, which was the basis of our lawsuit in the first place.”

To read the full status report filed with the United States District Court Northern District of Texas, click here.

Griffin and 16 other AGs fight to stop Biden Era attempt to categorize gender dysphoria as a disability

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Tim Griffin today issued the following update explaining a lawsuit he joined in September 2024 challenging an unlawful Biden administration rule that categorized gender dysphoria as a disability and allowed the federal government to withhold funds for those with disabilities from anyone who disagrees with the rule. Recent reporting has erroneously implied that the lawsuit seeks to repeal Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

What is Section 504?
•    Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in federally funded programs and (2) requires employers to reasonably accommodate disabilities.
•    States have to comply with Section 504 or the federal government can withdraw federal funds—like K-12 school funds, Medicaid dollars, etc.  
•    Federal law says that “gender identity disorders” are not disabilities under Section 504 or under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  
 
What prompted the lawsuit?
•    In May 2024, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule that—contrary to federal law—includes “gender dysphoria” as a disability under HHS regulations.
•    The rule’s gender mandate could require schools and universities to allow boys to use girls’ bathrooms and showers, even to live in girls’ dormitories; require schools and universities to allow males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports; and require teachers and students to use wrong-sex pronouns. 
•    If states do not comply with the HHS rule’s gender mandate, the Biden administration’s rule would jeopardize their federal funding. 
 
What is the lawsuit trying to do?
•    17 state attorneys general, including our office, sued to block Biden’s illegal HHS rule.  
•    The lawsuit does NOT seek to end Section 504’s disability protection for anyone covered under that statute. It simply seeks to overturn Biden’s unlawful gender mandate.
•    The lawsuit states that Section 504 did not allow the Biden administration to impose this gender mandate on the threat of taking away states’ federal funding.
•    If the states win this lawsuit, no one’s disability accommodations would be taken away—the regulations would go back to what they were before May 2024.

What is the current status of the lawsuit?
•    The lawsuit has been stayed while the Trump administration reconsiders the rule.

What about the claims that Count 3 of the lawsuit seeks to repeal Section 504?
•    The Biden administration says that Section 504 not only gives HHS the power to impose the gender mandate, but that this 52-year-old statute required the gender mandate all along.
•    We argue that the Biden administration is wrong about this. Federal law is clear that gender dysphoria is not a disability, and states cannot be forced to treat it as such in order to comply with Section 504. 
•    If Section 504 did somehow impose these gender-mandate obligations on states 50 years down the line, then the whole law wouldn’t be constitutional under the Spending Clause (which requires states be given clear conditions on federal funding). A ruling “declaring Section 504 unconstitutional”—in the context of this lawsuit—means that HHS could not revoke state funds it oversees (e.g. Medicaid funds) for the states’ failure to comply with the gender mandate. 
•    Again, the states DO NOT argue that Section 504 is actually unconstitutional, because we say that Section 504 DOES NOT allow for this gender mandate and CANNOT be interpreted the way the Biden administration tried to interpret it.
•    This statute has been on the books for 52 years. If we wanted to try and get rid of it like some people have claimed, we could have sued anytime. But we didn’t do that. We sued only after the May 2024 rule with the gender mandate.
•    When President Trump took office, we agreed to stay the case while the administration reassesses the rule. Why would we have done that if our goal was to have the entire statute struck down? It makes no sense.

What relief is the lawsuit seeking?
•    The requested relief was to enjoin federal government officials from withholding money from states for failure to comply with the unlawful gender dysphoria rule.
•    The lawsuit does not seek to repeal Section 504.

Conclusion
The Biden administration’s unlawful rule poses a legal threat to Section 504, and if enforced, it would potentially harm truly disabled students by punishing schools that refuse to conform to the unlawful final rule regarding gender dysphoria. It is the final rule classifying gender dysphoria as a disability that is being challenged by the lawsuit, NOT Section 504 itself.