If you have ever asked the TSA for a screening accommodation, pushed the Social Security Administration to send a notice in a format you could read, or requested captioning at a VA appointment, you were leaning on a fifty-year-old law that the Justice Department is now asking a federal appeals court to read far more narrowly.

In a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, government attorneys argued that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 "does not provide a private right of action against federal agencies in their programmatic capacities." Translated out of the legal register: when a federal agency discriminates against a disabled person, that person should not be able to take the agency to court under Section 504. The government says the proper route is an administrative complaint, followed by judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

How a Dispute Over ASL Interpreters Reached This Point

The case started with press briefings. In May 2025, the National Association of the Deaf and two deaf plaintiffs sued after the White House stopped providing American Sign Language interpreters. In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali granted a preliminary injunction requiring a qualified ASL interpreter at all publicly announced briefings held by the president or the press secretary. Judge Ali specifically rejected the government's claim that the plaintiffs had no private cause of action, holding that Section 504 was enforceable where the dispute concerned access to government programming. The government appealed on November 10, 2025, and its brief now contends that "nearly every court of appeals" to address the question has concluded that Section 504 reaches federal programs only through administrative proceedings and APA review.

The Half of Section 504 That This Argument Targets

The statute (29 U.S.C. § 794) bars disability discrimination in any "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and separately in any "program or activity conducted by any Executive agency." The first prong covers recipients of federal money: public school districts, hospitals, and universities. The second covers the federal government running its own operations.

The DOJ brief takes aim at the second prong. A child's school 504 plan rests on the first, where the right of individuals to sue federally funded recipients has been settled law for decades. That prong is not what this appeal is about.

What sits squarely in the path of the argument is every interaction a family has with the federal government itself. The ADA does not fill that gap, because Title II reaches state and local government rather than federal agencies. For the SSA, the TSA, the VA, and the national parks, Section 504 is the door. Nine disability organizations told the court that closing it would leave millions of disabled people without a way to challenge discrimination by the agencies they depend on most.

Why an Administrative Complaint Isn't a Substitute

Amy Robertson, the attorney who filed the amicus brief on behalf of those nine groups, framed the government's position plainly: it argues "there is no right for an individual to go before the court and say my rights have been violated under Section 504," which "would mean it would be more difficult to challenge discrimination by any federal agencies." The brief was joined by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network, CommunicationFIRST, Disability Law United, the Disability Rights Bar Association, Justice in Aging, the National Federation of the Blind, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. The ACLU of D.C. filed separately on June 2, 2026, arguing that federal courts hold inherent equitable power to enforce Section 504.

The practical distinction is one many families already understand from experience. An APA case asks whether an agency's policy was arbitrary or unlawful, and courts review that question with real deference to the agency. A Section 504 suit lets one person say that this agency discriminated against them, in their situation, and ask a judge to order a fix. The second tool is the one that has historically produced individual accommodations.

What Families Can Do Now

Nothing about the law has changed today. The preliminary injunction stands, the three-judge panel has not ruled, and oral argument has not been scheduled. The steps that protect a family's position are the ordinary ones, and they matter more while this is pending.

• Put accommodation requests to federal agencies in writing, and keep the dates. Email creates the record that any later challenge, in court or under the APA, will be built from.
• Ask for the agency's Section 504 coordinator by name. Every federal agency maintains its own Section 504 regulations covering its own programs, and someone is responsible for them.
• File the administrative complaint even when it feels like a formality. It is already a prerequisite in many situations, and it is the exact route the government is arguing should be the only one.
• Know which prong you are standing on. A dispute with a school district or hospital that takes federal funding follows a different path than one with a federal agency. Filing a disability discrimination complaint walks through the first, and healthcare rights under federal law lays out what medical facilities owe you.

The D.C. Circuit will decide this on its own timeline, and there is no deadline for families to meet in the meantime. What the case does offer is a reason to be precise. When a federal agency tells someone no, the written request, the date, and the name of the person who answered are what turn a bad experience into a claim someone can act on.