In his last year in office, President Joe Biden signed an order adding “gender dysphoria” to the definition of “disability” outlined in Section 504. The lawsuit challenges this “Final Rule” to Section 504, with the attorneys general emphasizing that gender dysphoria cannot be definitively confirmed by any diagnostic test.
The attorneys general of 17 states have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, legislation that guarantees certain rights to people with disabilities.
According to FOX59, the complaint was originally filed in a Texas-based court in September of 2014. Since then, more attorneys general have joined the lawsuit, which names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a defendant.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects people with disabilities from certain types of discrimination. It prohibits the release of federal funds to programs and projects receiving federal funds, including health care, public transportation, and education.
In his last year in office, President Joe Biden signed an order adding “gender dysphoria” to the definition of “disability” outlined in Section 504. The revised law states that gender dysphoria can be considered either a physical or a mental impairment constituting a disability.
The lawsuit challenges this “Final Rule” to Section 504, with the attorneys general emphasizing that gender dysphoria cannot be definitively confirmed by any diagnostic test.
Furthermore, the complaint argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act, which uses the same definition of “disability” as the Rehabilitation Act, specifically “excludes from that definition ‘transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, [and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments or other sexual behavior disorders.”
The lawsuit suggests that the Department of Health and Human Services overstepped its authority in enacting the “Final Rule” on gender dysphoria.
“The Final Rule’s stipulation that gender dysphoria ‘may be a disability’ is contrary to the express language in the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, and the court should set aside the Final Rule,” the lawsuit alleges. It asks the court to “enjoin Defendants from enforcing or implementing it and declare it unlawful.”
However, if a court were to grant every request outlined in the lawsuit, it would likely lead to the outright revocation of Section 504.
“The Rehabilitation Act fails to provide clear notice to States, preventing states from voluntarily and knowingly exercising choice in accepting federal funds,” the lawsuit says. “Section 504’s universal scope unfairly surprises States by retroactively adding conditions to pre-existing federal spending programs.”
Many of the attorneys general participating in the lawsuit have said that they support preserving most elements of Section 504 in its current form but are opposed to the “Final Rule” being tied to federal funding.
“We anticipate that our challenge to a Biden-era regulatory change will be resolved imminently,” said Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “If it is not resolved quickly, we are looking at all of our legal options, including amending the lawsuit to protect children. I will continue to strongly defend and protect Section 504 benefits and accommodations for Utah children.”
Sources
Indiana joins federal lawsuit surrounding constitutionality of disability civil rights law
Join the conversation!