(Author Photo)
Ken Paxton is currently the Texas attorney general. His name is on the complaint in Download Texas v. Becerra Complaint Doc. No. 1 filed Sept. 26 2024 (N.D. Tex. Case No. 5.24.cv.00225.H). I wrote about that lawsuit previously. I may not have written enough, so today I will quote a lot of their own words.
In their complaint, Paxton writes that Texas and other states of the Old and New Confederacy say that Section 504 is unconstitutional.
Here is Count 3, in their own words:
Count 3 Section 504 is Unconstitutional U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
221. All other allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
222. Under the Rehabilitation Act, “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
(Complaint, Count III title and paragraphs 221-222, at p. 40.) (Emphasis added to title of Count III of their complaint.)
This is what Paxton has written in their complaint. No question, they knew what they were doing. They certainly know what Section 504 stands for; as you can see they quoted it.
They wrote that they think that Section 504, which prohibits discrimination against handicapped people, is unconstitutional:
239. Because Section 504 is coercive, untethered to the federal interest in disability, and unfairly retroactive, the Rehabilitation Act is not constitutional under the spending clause.
(Complaint, paragraph 239, at p. 40.) (Emphasis added.)
Then they demanded that a judge declare Section 504 to be unconstitutional everywhere in America in all things, no qualifications:
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
a. Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing the Final Rule;
b. Declare that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act;
c. Hold unlawful and set aside (i.e., vacate) the Final Rule;
d. Declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional;
e. Issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing Section 504;
f. Award attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action to Plaintiffs; [and]
g. Issue any and all other relief to Plaintiffs the Court deems just and proper.
(Complaint, DEMAND FOR RELIEF, p. 42.) (The only demands for relief that do not address the transgender rule supposedly at issue in this case are the demands to which emphasis has been added so they are easily seen, and those are demands to declare Section 504 unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of Section 504’s prohibition on discrimination against handicapped people.)
Paxton has since said that this lawsuit "will have no impact" on Section 504 coverage. He says that anything to the contrary is "a misinformation campaign." He says that they never demanded that the protections of Section 504 be taken away, but only, he says, that they demanded that the court "protect them."
What Mr. Paxton speaks now is not what he wrote in their complaint.
Now you can see for yourself what he wrote. Paxton never thought that would happen, but it has.
If they wanted to amend their complaint, they would; but they haven't amended their complaint. Every lawyer knows that it is relatively simple and straight-forward to amend a complaint and that if you don't amend your complaint, all the words in the wind don't matter in court.
Oh, one last Paxtonism contrary to the truth. He says that a recent executive order "paused" this lawsuit. There is no such thing as a "pause," not because of somebody's executive order or anything else. The only thing that can stop a lawsuit is an order from the court. That hasn't happened here. Until and unless that happens, Section 504 is on track for a declaration.
Unless of course they voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit since they won't amend it.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2025 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law? Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.