For state and local government entities and organizations funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it’s been a complicated spring, to say the least.
If your organization falls into this category, there’s been a lot of new information for you to process.
First, there was the pressure of rapidly approaching deadlines. Then, HHS and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) shifted those deadlines out by a full year—first, Title II, then, Section 504.
As a reminder regarding these changes:
Title II
- The compliance date for state and local government entities with a total population of 50,000 or more was extended from April 24, 2026, to April 26, 2027.
- The compliance date for public entities with a total population of less than 50,000, or any special district government, was extended from April 26, 2027, to April 26, 2028.
Section 504
- The compliance date for recipients with 15 or more employees was extended from May 11, 2026 to May 11, 2027.
- The compliance date for recipients with fewer than 15 employees was extended from May 10, 2027 to May 10, 2028.
With an additional year to get their compliance plans in shape, many organizations breathed a sigh of relief.
Before the dust even settled, however, a new development emerged, and it’s one your organization needs to understand.
On May 21, 2026, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, directly challenging the interim final rules that extended both sets of deadlines. The case is now before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
This is not a fringe challenge. It is a substantive legal action with real arguments behind it, and the outcome could directly affect your deadlines—again.
It’s vital that you understand the stakes, the potential impact on your organization, and your best path forward.
What should your organization do now?
With the NFB challenge active and ongoing, your organization is probably wondering what to do. The short answer for your compliance program is: keep going.
The newly extended deadlines you may have started planning around are now legally contested, so the safest approach is to maintain your momentum. Your organization will be far better positioned regardless of how this litigation resolves.
Below, I explore what compliance leaders and program managers need to understand about the case, why maintaining compliance momentum is the right strategy, and what good-faith progress looks like right now.
Why the NFB wants the original deadlines restored
The complaint targets both deadline extensions (Title II and Section 504) on the same core ground: the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by issuing interim final rules without advance public notice and comment. About the actions taken by DOJ and HHS, the NFB complaint’s introduction states the following:
The two agencies upended rules that had been years in the making and were carefully crafted to strike the proper balance between ensuring equal access for people with disabilities and feasibility for covered entities.”
Under the APA, agencies are generally required to publish a proposed rule, accept public input, and consider that input before a rule takes effect. There is a “good cause” exception that allows agencies to skip that process in genuine emergencies. However, courts have consistently held that exception to a high standard.
The NFB’s position is that neither the DOJ nor HHS came close to meeting this standard. The complaint points out that DOJ extended the deadline four days before it was set to take effect. HHS extended its deadline on the very day compliance was required for larger recipients. The information both agencies cited to justify bypassing public comment—letters from industry groups, compliance concerns raised by regulated entities—had been publicly available for months or, in many cases, raised during the original rule-making sessions years earlier. The NFB argues there was no sudden emergency.
The complaint also alleges that the extensions were arbitrary and capricious—that the agencies failed to meaningfully weigh the harm to people with disabilities, relied on flawed economic assumptions, and offered justifications that didn’t hold up to scrutiny. The complaint notes, for example, that HHS’s own cost-benefit analysis showed the extension would produce a net decrease in benefits, and that HHS acknowledged this without offering a coherent explanation.
The NFB is asking the court to vacate both interim final rules, thereby restoring the original deadlines.
Why your organization must maintain compliance momentum
In my post on the DOJ extension and my post on the HHS extension, the message was the same: a deadline extension is not permission to pause.
Digital accessibility remains a current legal obligation regardless of what a compliance date says, because Section 504 and Title II of the ADA have always prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities. The 2024 rules simply established specific, measurable standards for how digital accessibility is achieved.
The NFB lawsuit adds a new layer of urgency to that message. If the NFB prevails, even partially, the extended deadlines could be shortened or eliminated. Organizations that have slowed their compliance work on the assumption that they have until 2027 or 2028 could find themselves with far less runway than they planned on.
There is no way to predict with certainty how this particular case will resolve. The outcome will depend on how the court evaluates the agencies’ justifications, a process that will take time. But the very existence of this lawsuit—filed by the oldest and largest national organization of blind people, with detailed allegations and concrete examples of harm to real individuals—is itself significant.
With the regulatory environment around these deadlines still so unsettled, the only safe bet is to keep making progress on compliance.
What good-faith progress looks like right now
Regardless of how this litigation unfolds, you want to position your organization in the best way possible, which means you must be able to demonstrate documented, continuous progress toward WCAG 2.1 A/AA.
If the original deadlines are restored, that record becomes your evidence of good-faith effort. If the extensions hold, that record still puts you in a stronger position when enforcement attention increases—and it will. The DOJ has consistently referenced WCAG 2.1 A/AA in consent decrees and settlements. That hasn’t changed.
The NFB complaint catalogs the kinds of barriers that are still prevalent, which include:
- inaccessible benefits portals
- telehealth platforms that screen readers cannot navigate
- government websites that block blind users from registering to vote or forming a business entity
These are examples of exactly the kinds of issues that draw enforcement attention and litigation.
If your organization is actively tracking remediation, testing against WCAG 2.1 A/AA criteria, building accessibility into procurement and development workflows, and holding vendors accountable, then you are on the right path. Stay on it. However, if you slowed down or paused after the initial extensions, you’re at risk of suddenly falling behind if the original deadlines are restored.
The bottom line
The deadline extensions issued by DOJ and HHS for Title II and Section 504 are being challenged in federal court by a plaintiff with strong standing and serious legal arguments. Regardless of the outcome, the underlying obligation—to make your digital experiences accessible to people with disabilities—has not changed and will not change.
Our recommendation is that you treat this moment as a reason to accelerate, not pause. When it comes to digital accessibility, momentum is hard to build and easy to lose. The work you did toward meeting the initial deadlines is incredibly valuable. Keep that progress going, and your organization will be well prepared for any scenario.
To chart a clear path forward, schedule a free strategic consultation with Deque. We work with state and local government entities, HHS-funded organizations, and the vendors that serve them. Let’s partner to position your organization for long-term compliance success.
