红杏视频

WASHINGTON 鈥� On Aug. 31, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with Texas, Florida and Alaska filed a proposed resolution of Texas v. Kennedy. These states challenged the HHS 2024 regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funds. The lawsuit focuses on the regulations鈥� provisions regarding community integration for people with disabilities. The resolution asks the court to enter an order vacating references to community integration throughout the Section 504 regulations, including the entirety of the integration provision. The resolution does not impact other portions of the 2024 HHS Section 504 Rule. We strongly and unequivocally condemn the actions of DOJ and HHS. This resolution continues the federal government鈥檚 abandonment of its duty to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities. The resolution relies on the June 18, 2026 memo from the DOJ鈥檚 Office of Legal Counsel. That memo reflects the federal government鈥檚 reversal of its longstanding interpretation of the law and of its own authority. The federal government鈥檚 Section 504 regulations have included integration provisions since 1977. To be clear, this resolution does not and cannot change longstanding legal precedent interpreting the requirements of Section 504 or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Nor does it change the ADA or Section 504 themselves. Only Congress can change the law. DOJ鈥檚 new interpretation of the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., the ADA, and Section 504 is simply wrong and inconsistent with 50 years of law. DOJ itself admits that its interpretation is 鈥渙ut of step鈥� with the interpretation of the law by courts across the country. The disability community opposes any effort to turn back the clock on disability rights and community integration or to strip disabled people of their dignity and autonomy. We join together against discrimination and segregation of people with disabilities. This statement was created by The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Justice in Aging, the National Health Law Program, and 红杏视频, with contributions by Alison Barkoff, Hirsh Health Law and Policy Associate Professor, George Washington University.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. 鈥� A federal judge in West Virginia today declined the state鈥檚 request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by West Virginia鈥檚 largest overdose prevention group, Solutions Oriented Addiction Response of West Virginia, which is suing to overturn the state鈥檚 nearly two-decades-old moratorium on new methadone clinics. The ruling allows the case to proceed. 鈥淎s we are packing thousands of doses of naloxone and care packages for Save a Life Day 2026, we are reminded that access matters,鈥� said Sarah Stone, co-director of Solutions Oriented Addiction Response of West Virginia (SOAR-WV). 鈥淲hether it鈥檚 naloxone, methadone or any other evidence-based care, people shouldn鈥檛 have to overcome stigma and unnecessary barriers to get the care they need. Dignity, autonomy and equitable access should not be extras. They are a baseline.鈥� Access to methadone is critical for people living with opioid use disorder, allowing people who use drugs like fentanyl to begin recovery treatment without dangerous withdrawal. Over the last two decades, more than 12,000 people have died from an opioid overdose in West Virginia. Yet, a statewide moratorium and state zoning restrictions limit methadone clinics to just nine clinics across the state, leaving large parts of the population a very long distance from the nearest clinic. 鈥淸A]s SOAR-WV has alleged the lack of methadone treatment centers has made it more difficult and time consuming to connect individual users to treatment, it necessarily follows that it is spending more of its resources on each individual referral. Therefore, the Court has little difficulty finding that SOAR-WV has sufficiently alleged a direct connection between the moratorium and zoning restrictions and injury to its mission,鈥� wrote U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers in his order today. The lawsuit is being brought by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of West Virginia, and Kaplan & Grady. It argues that the moratorium violates the American with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, because people with opioid use disorder 鈥� a recognized disability under federal law 鈥� are unable to receive the essential rehabilitation services they need. 鈥淲est Virginia鈥檚 moratorium is denying people with opioid use disorder the ability to receive lifesaving healthcare. This isn鈥檛 just dangerous and inhumane, it鈥檚 discriminatory and illegal,鈥� said Joseph Longley, staff attorney with the 红杏视频 Disability Rights Program. 鈥淲e look forward to proving that in court.鈥� 鈥淭his ruling is a critical step toward ending West Virginia鈥檚 discriminatory barriers to addiction treatment,鈥� said David Howard Sinkman of Kaplan & Grady. 鈥淢ethadone is essential for treating opioid use disorder and particularly important in the fentanyl era. People need access to treatment, not government restrictions that put their lives at risk.鈥� The order denying the motion to dismiss is available here: /cases/solutions-oriented-addiction-response-west-virginia-v-state-of-west-virginia?document=Order-Denying-Motion-to-Dismiss

NEW YORK 鈥� Disability rights organizations today filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to reverse a lower court decision to dismiss a case brought by a blind woman who was excluded from jury service because of her disability. The case involves a blind woman, Emeline Lakrout, who sued the New York State Unified Court System after she was excluded from jury service because the court denied her accommodations for her disability. Her claims were dismissed by a federal district court, and Ms. Lakrout has filed an appeal in the Second Circuit to vindicate her rights. 鈥淭he importance of jury service as a fundamental civic duty cannot be understated. When disabled people are excluded from this core form of civic participation, it undermines the fairness of the judicial system and denies individuals with disabilities representation in the process,鈥� said Malhar Shah, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频 Disability Rights Program. 鈥淭his is about more than one juror 鈥� New York courts have repeatedly failed to remove systemic barriers that prevent disabled people from serving on juries. Accessibility isn鈥檛 optional, and we hope the Second Circuit states that clearly.鈥� The amicus brief argues that excluding Ms. Lakrout from jury service violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 鈥淏lind prospective jurors face pervasive institutional barriers to jury service that are not the result of discriminatory individual decisions but are instead the result of the widespread failures of courts to take the required affirmative steps to include and accommodate disabled court users, including identifying and providing the auxiliary aids and services that a person may need. Enforcement of Section 504 and the ADA is thus critical to the ability of blind people to exercise their fundamental duties of citizenship, including jury service,鈥� the brief reads. 鈥淚t is frankly unacceptable that New York courts are excluding people with disabilities from jury service, calling into question whether our judicial system serves all New Yorkers equally,鈥� said Beth Haroules, director of disability justice litigation at the NYCLU. 鈥淣o one should be turned away from a fundamental civic duty simply because they have a disability. Our laws require accommodations to dismantle systemic barriers for people with disabilities, and the Second Circuit must uphold this basic right.鈥� Systemic barriers continue to cause widespread exclusion of blind and otherwise disabled jurors, and affirmative steps need to be taken to include jurors with disabilities, according to the brief. This includes securing auxiliary aids and services like screen readers and assistive listening devices used to provide effective communication, developing accommodation policies, and training staff to implement accommodations. Excluding jurors with disabilities, the brief argues, undermines the fairness, representativeness, and legitimacy of the judicial system. The brief in Lakrout v. New York Unified Court System was submitted by the 红杏视频, New York Civil Liberties Union, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Disability Rights New York, and the National Disability Rights Network. The brief is available here: /cases/lakrout-v-new-york-state-unified-court-system?document=Amicus-Brief