The short answer is nothing just yet, the long answer is… more complicated.  

Department of Education Regulations  

In May 2022, the Department of Education announced it was soliciting comments to develop proposed amendments to the Section 504 regulations. While ED has issued multiple guidance documents about the implementation of Section 504 in schools, the regulations have remained largely unchanged since 1977. The ED under Biden did not ultimately propose new Section 504 regulations. President Trump has directed agencies to repeal regulations and directed ED to wind down its operations, making new Section 504 regulations unlikely.  

Department of Human Services Regulations 

The Department of Health and Human Services did, however, issue new Section 504 regulations in May 2024. Many of the changes mirror those we expected in the promised ED regulations: updated terminology, aligning the definition of disability with the ADA, and specifying requirements for digital accessibility. But the new regulations and the agency explanation (preamble) of the new regulations sparked a lawsuit, Texas v. Bacerra (now Texas v. Kennedy). The lawsuit was filed by 17 states in September 2024, and focuses on a section of the preamble that advised that gender dysphoria can be a disability requiring accommodation under Section 504 (based on the reasoning in a Fourth Circuit case, Williams v. Kincaid). However, the lawsuit also challenged other aspects of the regulation and the constitutionality of the statute itself.  

In February 2025, media coverage of the lawsuit picked up and advocacy groups decried the effort to undo Section 504 protections. Governors and attorneys general denied that they intended to have the court declare Section 504 unconstitutional, despite the clear language of their complaint asking the court to do just that. At the same time, the new administration took a different stance on transgender issues. HHS asked the court for time to determine the administration’s position, and the parties filed a joint status report clarifying that states’ challenge to the statute targets the application of Section 504 to programs that are not authorized and funded by the Rehabilitation Act rather than to the statute as a whole. (This interpretation would significantly reduce the reach of the law.) 

In April 2025, HHS published a clarification in the Federal Register, stating that the language in the preamble related to gender dysphoria does not have the force or effect of law and cannot be enforced. The parties also filed a second status report in which the states further clarified that they did not intend for the court to declare Section 504 unconstitutional at all. The litigation is on hold until July.  

While the states did not amend their complaint, it now appears unlikely that the lawsuit will result in the statute being declared unconstitutional. At the same time, even though the challenge to the statement in the preamble that gender dysphoria can be a disability is now moot, the states have not dropped the case, signaling that other parts of the regulation may continue to be challenged by the states. 

Deregulation 

In addition, the Section 504 regulations (both the HHS and (old) ED regulations) may be implicated by the new deregulatory agenda. Two executive orders direct agencies to review regulations and identify those that should be rescinded because they exceed the agency’s statutory authority, implicate a “major question,” impose significant costs that are not outweighed by the benefits, are not adequately explained, or run counter to a slew of recent Supreme Court decisions curtailing agency authority. While the law generally requires agencies to use a notice and comment procedure to repeal regulations, just like what is required to enact regulations, the administration has encouraged agencies to use an exception to skip that process.    

The ED guidance documents that create the framework for so much of what schools do with respect to Section 504, on the other hand, can be withdrawn without any particular process. The lack of process means that it is difficult to know which guidance documents have been rescinded. This is especially true when ED revamped its website shortly before the administration change, breaking the links to numerous resources. The website reorganization, in addition to the abrupt changes in policy, means it is not always clear whether prior guidance is abandoned or simply misplaced, for instance the 2024 guidance about avoiding the discriminatory use of artificial intelligence. The Department’s webpage with resources for civil rights laws provides some guidance documents, while a page with policy guidance provides a somewhat different list.  

Section 504 Liability 

While OCR enforcement has slowed, the standard for judicial enforcement may be headed for revision. The Supreme Court heard arguments about the issue in AJT v. Osseo Area Schools this week. Liability under the IDEA derives from any denial of FAPE, but under Section 504, a denial of FAPE based on a mistake or disagreement does not establish liability. Section 504 is an anti-discrimination statute, so liability must be premised on intentional discrimination. The Court is considering the level of fault a parent must establish to show such discrimination by school officials: bad faith and gross misjudgment or deliberate indifference. We will have more information about the case when a decision is issued later this spring or early summer. 

Wrap Up 

For now, the ED Section 504 regulations continue to be in effect for schools and the main FAQ about students is still available.  Schools should continue providing FAPE to students with qualifying disabilities. We are monitoring which regulations are identified for repeal or modification and anticipate additional litigation, especially to the extent the administration seeks to avoid the notice and comment procedures. We will also keep you up to date with respect to Texas v. Kennedy and AJT v. Osseo Area Schools.