Disability Pride Month: Celebrating Legal Progress, Recommitting to a More Just Future

Observed each July, Disability Pride Month commemorates the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990—a landmark civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination based on disability and guarantees equal access across employment, education, public accommodations, transportation, and government services.

For those across appellate law, the broader legal profession, and social justice fields, Disability Pride Month is more than a celebration. It is an invitation to reflect on the hard-won legal victories that shaped the disability rights movement, to interrogate the structural inequities that persist, and to recommit to building a future where equity, dignity, and accessibility are not conditional.

The Legal Landscape Before the ADA

Prior to 1990, federal protections for people with disabilities were limited and unevenly enforced. A series of Supreme Court cases laid the groundwork for the ADA by clarifying, and at times exposing the shortcomings of, existing legal frameworks like Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:

Southeastern Community College v. Davis

Frances Davis, a hearing-impaired applicant, was denied admission to a nursing program due to concerns about patient safety during clinical training. The Court ruled that Section 504 did not require institutions to make substantial program modifications, reinforcing that accommodations must be “reasonable” and not fundamentally alter services. The decision underscored the need for clearer, more robust protections—protections that the ADA would later provide.

1979

Board of Education v. Rowley

In this case, the Court held that public schools are required to provide students with disabilities access to a “basic floor of opportunity,” but not necessarily to maximize their potential. The ruling revealed the limits of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now IDEA) and highlighted the necessity for more explicit civil rights language.

1982

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

The Court struck down a city’s refusal to grant a zoning permit for a group home for people with intellectual disabilities, ruling that the denial was based on irrational prejudice. However, the Court declined to recognize people with disabilities as a “suspect class” under the Equal Protection Clause. The case remains a cornerstone in disability rights litigation, illustrating both progress and the limits of judicial protections without statutory backing.

1985

These cases, while varied in outcome, all pointed to a common need: a more robust and enforceable civil rights framework that recognized disability not as a personal limitation, but as a dimension of identity impacted by structural exclusion.

The ADA and its Judicial Evolution

Passed in 1990, the ADA responded to these legal gaps with sweeping reforms. It established enforceable civil rights for people with disabilities across multiple domains and created mechanisms for addressing discrimination, setting a new national standard for accessibility and inclusion.

But the reach and impact of the ADA has been shaped, expanded, and in some cases narrowed, by decades of judicial interpretation. These cases continue to shape appellate law careers today, influencing how attorneys advocate for disability rights at the highest levels of the judiciary.

Key Supreme Court Decisions That Shaped the ADA

Olmstead v. L.C.

Perhaps the most celebrated post-ADA case, Olmstead held that the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities constitutes unlawful discrimination. The Court established the “community integration mandate,” affirming that people have the right to receive services in the least restrictive environment possible.

1999

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

In a more restrictive ruling, the Court found that individuals using mitigating measures (e.g., medication, prosthetics) could be considered “not disabled” under the ADA. This interpretation drastically narrowed who was protected under the law—prompting Congress to pass the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which broadened the definition and restored the original intent of the statute.

1999

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin

The Court ruled that public accommodations must make reasonable modifications to ensure access, even in professional sports settings, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the service. This case affirmed that the ADA applies not only to traditional public spaces but also to elite institutions and high-profile events.

2001

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal

The Court held that employers may consider direct threats to a worker’s own health in hiring decisions—so long as those judgments are based on objective medical evidence and not assumptions about disability. The case raised important questions about autonomy, paternalism, and workplace safety.

2002

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled in favor of a student with epilepsy whose school denied her a modified schedule. Lower courts had required a heightened standard—proof of “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—to prevail in ADA education claims. The Court rejected that approach, affirming that disability discrimination in schools should be assessed under the same standards as other civil rights claims. This decision strengthens protections for students and lowers procedural barriers to justice.

2005

Persistent Barriers to Realizing the ADA’s Promise

Despite decades of legal progress, many barriers remain:

  • Complaint-Driven Enforcement: The ADA relies heavily on individuals to file complaints. This process can be time-consuming, complex, and inaccessible—especially for those without legal support.

  • Continued Inaccessibility: People with disabilities continue to face inequities in employment, voting access, housing, healthcare, and even marriage. For example, many polling places remain physically inaccessible, and some federal benefit programs penalize marriage.

  • Ongoing Discrimination: Beyond physical barriers, people with disabilities face persistent bias in hiring, education, and healthcare settings. Employers make assumptions about productivity, educators hold lower expectations, and healthcare providers dismiss patient concerns based on stereotypes about disability. These forms of discrimination are often subtle, making them difficult to identify and challenge legally, yet they create systemic barriers to full participation in society.

  • Segregation & Institutionalization: Despite Olmstead, many individuals remain unnecessarily institutionalized or lack access to community-based services.

  • Narrow Judicial Interpretation: Courts sometimes construe the ADA in ways that limit its impact, either by raising the burden of proof or narrowing the scope of coverage.

Disability, Intersectionality, and the Call for Inclusive Justice

Disability does not exist in isolation. People of color with disabilities disproportionately experience poverty, employment discrimination, police violence, and health inequities—yet are often excluded from policy design, litigation strategy, and philanthropic priority-setting. True disability justice requires intersectional frameworks that address the compounded impact of racism, ableism, gender bias, and economic marginalization.

This lens must also guide how we think about leadership and representation in the legal field, especially in appellate law, where diversity in the legal profession remains limited. Who gets to shape precedent? Whose stories are heard in courtrooms? Which advocates are resourced to bring forward the next generation of cases?

Reimagining What’s Possible

Disability Pride Month reminds us that law is not static. While the ADA was a monumental achievement, its legacy depends on ongoing interpretation, rigorous enforcement, and a broader commitment to equity. For funders, educators, legal advocates, and scholars, this means resourcing community-informed litigation, diversifying the poolof appellate and policy talent, and ensuring that disability is not siloed from other civil rights issues—but understood as essential to them.

At The Appellate Project (TAP), we believe that expanding access to appellate courts requires not only removing barriers but also reimagining power. We are committed to supporting emerging appellate leaders—including those with disabilities—who bring lived experience, legal excellence, and a vision for a more inclusive future. Our mission is deeply tied to building equitable appellate law careers and advancing diversity in appellate law at every level.