A federal judge has removed from Section 504 regulations a requirement that federally funded programs provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, following a major change in the Trump administration’s position on disability rights. The ruling in Texas v. Kennedy came after the Justice Department, originally a defendant in the states’ challenge to the integration requirement, declined to defend the rules and joined the states in seeking to undo them. The decision strips out language that had guided federal enforcement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a landmark civil rights law barring disability discrimination. Disability advocates say the change could make it harder for people to live, work and receive care in their communities rather than in institutions. Jennifer Mathis, a disability rights lawyer with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, said reduced clarity could affect both individual rights and how states act. She said the ruling was highly unusual because the federal government asked a court to vacate its own regulations. The decision does not eliminate integration protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision, which affirmed that people with disabilities have a right to receive services in community settings when appropriate. But Bruce Darling, president and CEO of the Center for Disability Rights, said the question is whether those rights will be enforced in practice. His organization is backing proposed legislation to establish integration protections in federal law. The administration’s reversal has unfolded over several months. In June, the Justice Department issued an opinion saying it no longer viewed disability law as requiring states to serve people with intellectual disabilities in the most integrated setting suited to their needs. In July, it said it would stop relying on longstanding guidance on enforcement of the integration mandate. The court ruling now removes the explicit Section 504 regulatory language, some of which dates to regulations established in 1977. Congress passed Section 504 in 1973, but disability advocates spent years pressing for regulations to make the law enforceable. The Department of Health and Human Services strengthened the regulations in 2024 to clarify states’ obligations. Advocates point to a Florida case involving children with complex medical needs as an example of how the administration’s new position may affect enforcement. The Justice Department sued Florida in 2013, arguing that inadequate in-home services had forced some families to place children in nursing facilities. After the federal government won in 2023, Florida was required to provide services to help families care for children at home. In August, the Justice Department asked a federal court to set aside that victory and allow the case to be heard again, citing its changed interpretation of disability law. The policy shift comes as states face pressure to reduce Medicaid spending. Medicaid funds many services that enable disabled people to live in their communities. Mathis warned that states looking for budget cuts could feel less constrained in scaling back such programs. Advocates are pressing for action in Congress and state legislatures. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution affirming the federal government’s longstanding interpretation of Olmstead, and 100 members of Congress signed a July letter urging the Justice Department to withdraw its June opinion. Delaware has enacted a state law incorporating the Section 504 regulations that were removed federally, while disability advocates say officials in other states are considering similar protections. Alison Barkoff, a disability rights advocate and health law and policy professor at George Washington University, said people with disabilities are working to preserve the right to participate in their communities. Darling helped draft the bipartisan Latonya Reeves Freedom Act, which would codify integration protections in federal law. The bill has faced challenges in the past, but he said the recent developments have brought renewed attention to the issue.