by Chris Danielsen
It goes without saying that for blind and deafblind Americans, inaccessible websites and mobile applications are not a minor inconvenience. They are barriers to healthcare, education, employment, civic participation, and independence. That is why the National Federation of the Blind has fought for equal access to digital content for the past two and a half decades or more. In addition to entering into direct negotiations with companies, universities, school districts, and government entities; providing resources to help businesses and governments improve accessibility through the establishment and growth of our Center for Excellence in Nonvisual Accessibility; and, usually when all else fails, filing lawsuits, we fought for clear federal standards requiring government agencies and healthcare providers to make their digital services accessible. In 2024, after more than a decade of study, public comment, and rulemaking, the United States Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services finally adopted landmark regulations establishing those standards. Then, just as the first deadlines for compliance arrived in spring 2026, the current executive administration abruptly delayed them.
This betrayal of the promise made to blind, deafblind, and disabled Americans was covered in last month’s Braille Monitor. As we reported then, we made several attempts to forestall these actions, which government agencies had been signaling were coming. We wrote letters before the documents announcing the delays, known in government jargon as interim final rules, were even published. When they were finally issued, we submitted official comments. (Our comments to the Department of Justice (DOJ) announcement were published in May, and our comments to the Health and Human Services action follow this article.) In addition, John Paré, our Executive Director for Advocacy and Policy, and our general counsel Eve Hill, herself a former DOJ attorney, met with DOJ officials on three separate occasions attempting to dissuade them from this course of action. But now the adverse actions have been taken. So on May 21, 2026, the National Federation of the Blind—represented by Democracy Forward and our longtime allies at Brown, Goldstein & Levy of Baltimore, including Eve—filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland challenging the agencies’ actions.
Suing the government is no small matter and some members have wondered why we are pursuing litigation at this point rather than continuing our efforts at persuasion. The answer is that, in addition to violating our rights, the interim final rules violate a federal law known as the Administrative Procedure Act. President Riccobono explained this well in an email to a member. Here it is:
Thank you for your email and for your commitment to protecting the rights of blind Americans.
I agree that collecting stories and engaging in persuasion are important tools. In fact, they are tools we have been using. We have gathered stories from affected individuals, educated policymakers, engaged allies, communicated with agency officials, and worked to build public understanding of the harm these actions would cause. The National Federation of the Blind has always believed that changing hearts and minds is an important part of creating lasting progress. However, this situation presents a challenge that cannot be addressed through persuasion alone.
The federal agencies involved have taken actions that we believe violate the law, specifically the Administrative Procedure Act. The issue before us is not simply whether we agree or disagree with a policy outcome. The issue is whether federal agencies followed the legally required process before taking actions that directly affect the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities.
The process for challenging these agency actions provides only a limited window for legal action. If we fail to act within that window, we risk losing the opportunity to obtain meaningful relief regardless of how persuasive our arguments may be. Litigation therefore is not a substitute for advocacy; it is a necessary tool for preserving our rights when the government acts outside the bounds established by law.
It is also important to understand that we are not suing the President. We are seeking relief from federal agencies that we believe have violated federal law. We have never held back from taking action, and that action has no connection to who is in power at the time. Our lawsuit asks the courts to require those agencies to comply with the legal procedures Congress established. This is precisely how our constitutional system is designed to function. When an agency exceeds its authority or fails to follow required procedures, the courts provide a mechanism for review.
A letter-writing campaign can be valuable in influencing policy decisions and shaping future actions. What it cannot do is remedy a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act that has already occurred. Only the courts can provide the legal relief necessary to address that violation.
More broadly, I do not see this as a choice between persuasion and litigation. Throughout our history, the Federation has employed every available strategy when defending the rights of blind people. We have educated the public, told our stories, built relationships with policymakers, organized grassroots action, advocated before administrative agencies, pursued legislative change, and, when necessary, sought relief through the courts. These strategies are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce one another.
In fact, many of the Federation’s most important victories have been achieved through a combination of public education, political advocacy, and legal action. We persuade when persuasion can solve the problem. We legislate when legislation is needed. And when government agencies violate the law in ways that threaten the rights of blind Americans, we use the legal system as well. Our responsibility is not to choose one tool over another, but to employ every appropriate tool available to protect and advance our rights. Please remember also that the campaign you are currently referring to has been underway since at least 2010.
We will continue telling our stories. We will continue educating policymakers. We will continue engaging our families, friends, and communities. We will continue building public support. And when government agencies violate the law, we will continue to seek appropriate relief through the courts.
I appreciate your engagement and your willingness to think critically about our strategy. I would be interested in your reflections on what I have shared here. Do you see aspects of the persuasion and relationship-building work that you believe we should strengthen further alongside our legal efforts? I would welcome your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Mark
The complaint we filed argues, as explained above, that the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services violated federal law by delaying implementation of the regulations without proper notice and public comment and without adequately considering the harm to blind people and others with disabilities. The lawsuit seeks court orders restoring the original compliance deadlines and preserving the regulations that promised to bring disability rights protections fully into the digital age.
As background, the regulations at issue adopted the internationally recognized Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA standards for digital accessibility. These standards are already widely used across the globe and provide clear technical requirements for accessible websites and apps. The DOJ and many of our nation’s courts have also adopted the standards in court cases and in settlements reached with various parties. The rules require covered entities to design websites and apps so that they work properly with access technologies such as screen readers and refreshable Braille displays. That includes ensuring that buttons and images are labeled properly, forms can be completed nonvisually, and digital content is organized in ways that allow blind users to navigate efficiently.
Our complaint notes that the regulations were the product of more than fifteen years of rulemaking, analysis, and public input. The DOJ first announced its intention to establish accessibility standards for government websites on July 26, 2010, the thirtieth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Over the following years, the agency sought multiple rounds of public comments, conducted cost-benefit analyses, and held listening sessions with stakeholders. In 2024, the DOJ finally promulgated regulations under Title II of the ADA requiring state and local governments to ensure that their websites and mobile applications comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
At roughly the same time, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized parallel regulations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA’s predecessor, requiring healthcare providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, and other recipients of federal financial assistance to make their web content and mobile apps accessible.
Both sets of regulations gave larger entities two years to comply and smaller entities three years. As the lawsuit explains, the agencies carefully weighed the need for accessibility against the burden on covered entities and concluded that the compliance timelines struck the proper balance between urgency and feasibility.
But in April and May 2026, only days before the first compliance deadlines arrived, the agencies issued the interim final rules postponing implementation by another year. The DOJ extended the compliance deadline for larger government entities from April 24, 2026, until April 26, 2027, while the Department of Health and Human Services extended the deadline for larger healthcare entities from May 11, 2026, until May 11, 2027. The deadlines for smaller entities are now two years away, in 2028. Importantly, although the agencies invited public comments on the interim final rules, they said that they would go into effect immediately regardless. Even more troubling than all that were the agencies’ signals, buried deep in the text of each interim final rule notice, that they may attempt to weaken or further delay the underlying accessibility rules in the future.
The Federation’s lawsuit argues that these delays, and any further tampering with the regulations, are not only unlawful but also “arbitrary and capricious” because little has meaningfully changed since the regulations were issued in 2024. In other words, the same circumstances under which the agencies set the original deadlines still exist; nothing has happened to make it harder for covered entities to comply. According to the complaint, the agencies bypassed the normal notice-and-comment process required under federal law (specifically the Administrative Procedure Act) and instead imposed the delays immediately while only allowing comments afterward. The complaint further argues that the agencies, having no real evidence of changed circumstances or unrealistic expectations in the original regulations, relied primarily on a few anecdotal assertions from longstanding opponents of the rules and failed to meaningfully consider the harms that disabled people would continue to experience as a result of the delays.
Those harms are not theoretical, as we all know. The complaint makes this clear for the court by including stories from blind Federation members across the country, solicited through our publications and social media, describing the barriers they continue to encounter when government agencies, educational institutions, and healthcare providers fail to make their digital services accessible. (Those stories are still coming in, and you can submit yours by emailing [email protected] or calling 410-659-9314, extension 2444. They are still needed to support the lawsuit and our advocacy efforts.)
For example, Andrew Slater was unable to apply for unemployment benefits in his home state of Illinois. “The website was not designed for screen readers, making it difficult to navigate,” the complaint explains. “Certain fillable online forms could not be completed, making it impossible for him to submit his application for benefits online. Andrew spent hours attempting to resolve the issue via phone calls directly to the relevant administrative agency, and the agents he spoke with frequently recommended actions that were similarly inaccessible for a blind screen reader user of the website. These barriers resulted in inconvenience and wasted time that a sighted person does not have to endure.” Many of us can doubtless identify with Andrew’s frustrating experience. Who among us has not dialed a contact number provided on an inaccessible website in hopes of finding a helpful human to get us around the problem only to be referred back to the same website by a not-so-helpful human or, even worse, an automated system that doesn’t let us get to any human at all?
Barriers to business registration, civic participation, and community life were also addressed in the lawsuit. Sina Bahram, an accessibility consultant and entrepreneur from North Carolina, encountered inaccessible online systems when attempting to form a new corporate entity in his state. Because the state portal was unusable with his screen reader, he had to hire a registered agent to complete the process on his behalf, resulting in additional expense, inconvenience, and delay that sighted business owners do not experience. Dana Ard, president of the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho, described being unable to identify legislators serving on relevant committees because Idaho state government websites were inaccessible to her screen reader. As a result, she was unable to obtain information needed to participate effectively in the democratic process. Margie Donovan of California explained that, during her fifteen years of residence in her city, inaccessible Parks and Recreation Department websites prevented her from independently reviewing event calendars and information about community programming. Even after raising concerns with city officials, the barriers remained.
The complaint also details the educational consequences of inaccessible digital systems. Lindsey, a blind graduate student in California, encountered delays registering for coursework because her university distributed the course catalog as an inaccessible PDF table that her screen reader could not interpret. While her sighted classmates could quickly review course offerings, she could not access the same information with equal convenience or timeliness.
Healthcare barriers described in the complaint are equally troubling.
Jolean O’Connell of Kentucky sought telehealth counseling services but encountered an inaccessible online intake form containing a signature field that could not be completed with a screen reader. When she requested an alternative method for signing the form, the therapist refused to provide services at all, telling Jolean that telehealth was not appropriate for her.
The complaint emphasizes that these examples represent only a small sample of the barriers blind people face every day. The delayed regulations were intended to address exactly these kinds of problems. The lawsuit also pushes back against the government’s claim that the delays are necessary because compliance would be too burdensome. The complaint notes that the agencies already spent years considering those concerns before issuing the final rules. The regulations included not only the statutory exceptions for undue burdens and fundamental alterations contained in the original ADA, but also provided additional, newly-created exceptions covering, for example, much pre-existing content, allowing entities to focus primarily on making content accessible going forward, which is simple and inexpensive. In addition, smaller entities were already given an extra year to comply with the regulations. Therefore, the regulations as promulgated relieved many burdens rather than imposing new ones. The complaint further argues that many organizations have already spent years preparing for compliance and that the administration’s last-minute delays create uncertainty rather than clarity.
In announcing the lawsuit, we stressed that digital accessibility is not optional in a society where government services, education, and healthcare increasingly exist online. “For over fifty years, our laws—specifically Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act—have promised blind Americans and other Americans with disabilities equal access to all areas of life, including digital spaces and services. Yet today this promise remains unfulfilled, and now our government is compounding the outrage by asking us to wait even longer,” said Mark Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind in OUR OFFICIAL statement. “We will not wait. We will fight to ensure that the promise of America’s laws, and indeed its founding documents, finally becomes reality for blind and disabled Americans.”
This litigation represents the latest chapter in the organized blind movement’s long fight to ensure that technological progress benefits blind people equally rather than leaving us behind and relegating us to second-class citizenship. The internet long ago ceased to be a mere luxury or novelty. It is now the primary gateway to government services, healthcare, education, employment, and community involvement. Blind people cannot afford to wait indefinitely for equal access while agencies continue postponing rules that have already been studied, debated, and finalized.
The National Federation of the Blind does not seek confrontation, and we have patiently pursued both regulatory and legislative avenues to achieve the goal of clear and comprehensive guidance for entities covered by the civil rights laws that promise our full participation in society. But we will not have the promise of full integration dangled in front of us only to be unlawfully snatched away at the last minute with no credible justification or fair opportunity, as guaranteed by our laws and the Constitution’s First Amendment, to petition our government to seek redress for the ongoing harm being done to us. In the courts or wherever else the battle is joined, we will continue to engage until the war for the equal web is won.