Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a coalition of states backing the Trump Administration’s move to reverse a Biden-era rule that classified gender dysphoria as a disability under federal law.
The multistate effort supports a proposed revision to Department of Health and Human Services regulations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which would explicitly exclude gender dysphoria from disability protections. This marks the latest development in an ongoing legal and political battle over how federal civil rights laws apply to gender identity issues.
“Plaintiffs further clarify that they have no intention to seek any relief from this Court on Count 3 (Section 504 is Unconstitutional) of their Complaint [or] their Demand for Relief at d–e [declare Section 504 unconstitutional and block HHS from enforcing Section 504],” states a January 2026 Joint Status Report filed in the case of Texas v. Kennedy, according to disability rights advocates.
Legal Battle Over Disability Definition
At the heart of the dispute is a 2024 HHS Final Rule that expanded the definition of disability under Section 504 to include gender dysphoria. Paxton and other state attorneys general have argued this expansion contradicts statutory language that specifically excludes “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments” from disability protections.
The Biden administration’s rule, they contend, risked diverting limited resources away from individuals with conditions traditionally recognized as disabilities. In response to these concerns, the Trump Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 19, 2025, seeking to reverse the inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected condition.
What’s at stake? Section 504 provides crucial anti-discrimination protections for people with disabilities in programs receiving federal funding, including healthcare and education. The legal challenge to the 2024 rule has significant implications for how these protections are applied.
Paxton led a multistate lawsuit challenging the Biden-era rule shortly after it was implemented. The case has been ongoing, with the January 2026 status report indicating that state plaintiffs are still considering their claims but requested a stay in light of the Trump Administration’s proposed revision.
Broader Implications
This legal battle represents just one front in a wider conflict over federal civil rights protections for transgender individuals. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which includes Section 504, was one of the first major federal laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities.
The plaintiffs in the case have specifically stated they don’t seek to undermine the broader protections of Section 504. “And nothing in Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks to… prevent the Federal Government from allocating spending or applying the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act to any recipients of such funds,” the Joint Status Report notes.
Still, disability rights organizations have expressed concern that challenges to the 2024 rule could have unintended consequences for the broader framework of disability protections established over the past five decades.
As federal agencies continue to navigate the complex intersection of gender identity and disability rights, the outcome of this case may set important precedents for how civil rights laws are interpreted in the years to come.
