For Deaf viewers who follow American politics, a White House press briefing used to come with an American Sign Language interpreter in the frame. Early in 2025 the interpreters stopped appearing. What began as a fight to bring them back has turned into something much larger, and the question a US appeal court is now weighing reaches well beyond one podium: can people with disabilities take a federal agency to court at all?
What the case is about
The National Association of the Deaf, together with Derrick Ford, a Deaf individual, sued the White House after it stopped including ASL interpreters at briefings when President Trump returned to office. Their claim rests on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which, as Disability Scoop describes it, is “a law barring disability discrimination in federally funded programs.”
The group argues that ASL is a distinct language with its own grammar, and that captioning does not give many ASL users equal access. The White House has said captions and transcripts are enough, and that requiring interpreters at its events “would severely intrude on the President’s prerogative to control the image he presents to the public.”
On 4 November 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali issued a preliminary injunction ordering the White House to “immediately begin providing a simultaneous and publicly accessible feed with visible American Sign Language interpretation by a qualified interpreter for all publicly announced White House press briefings conducted by the President or White House Press Secretary that are captured by White House communication channels.” Following the order, Disability Scoop reports, the White House “started including ASL interpreters at some events.”
The bigger argument on appeal
The administration is appealing that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and its argument goes further than interpreters. In their filing, Justice Department attorneys wrote that “the Rehabilitation Act’s text, structure, and history make clear that Section 504” does not provide a private right of action against federal agencies in their programmatic capacities, even assuming it provides for an individual right. In plain terms, the government contends that a person cannot sue a federal agency directly under Section 504, and should instead bring claims through the Administrative Procedure Act.
Disability advocates say that reading is out of step with how the law has worked for decades. Amy Robertson, an attorney who filed an amicus brief for nine disability groups, described the government’s position this way to Disability Scoop: “They’re arguing in a nutshell that there is no private right of action, that there is no right for an individual to go before the court and say my rights have been violated under Section 504.” The brief, filed on 2 June 2026 by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and eight other organizations, argues that “for more than four decades, disabled people have relied on the private right of action under Section 504 to hold the federal government accountable when it discriminates,” including in national parks, veterans’ hospitals, federal prisons, and the halls of power.
When Disability Scoop reported on the appeal in July 2026, the matter was expected to go before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit with no date set. There is a date now. The National Association of the Deaf said on 22 September 2026 that “the oral argument on the appeal will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on October 6, 2026 at 2:00 P.M.” We are reporting the arguments as each side has made them; a court has not resolved the question.
What Canada’s system does differently
In Canada, the specific question at the centre of the US appeal does not arise in the same way, because access complaints against government are not driven mainly by private lawsuits for damages. Two routes carry most of that work.
The first is the human rights complaint. Disability is a prohibited ground of discrimination under section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 5 makes it a discriminatory practice, “in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public,” to “deny, or to deny access to” any of them, or to “differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.” Where a complaint is substantiated, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can order a range of remedies. Under section 53 of the Act, those include compensation “not exceeding twenty thousand dollars, for any pain and suffering” (section 53(2)(e)), and a further amount of “compensation not exceeding twenty thousand dollars” where the person “is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice wilfully or recklessly” (section 53(3)). One point of practical note: federal bodies fall under the Canadian Human Rights Commission, while health care, education, housing and most employment are provincial, so many complaints go to a provincial commission or tribunal instead.
The second route is the Charter. In Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997, Deaf appellants argued that without funded interpreters they received a lesser quality of medical service than hearing patients. The Court agreed. It found that the failure to provide sign language interpreters meant the quality of “an indispensable component of the delivery of medical services” was adversely affected, that this was discrimination on the basis of physical disability under section 15(1) of the Charter, and it declared the failure unconstitutional, a result The Canadian Encyclopedia summarizes as British Columbia having to provide sign-language interpreters in provincial hospitals. Alongside these routes sits a layer of accessibility legislation enforced by regulators rather than by individual plaintiffs, which we have covered in our look at Canada’s accessible service standard.
Why this matters here
Canadian readers watch US disability law for good reason. It shapes cross-border services, and Canadian advocates sometimes point to American precedent, as we found when the delayed US web accessibility rules went to court. But the structural difference is worth holding onto. In the United States, a great deal turns on whether an individual can walk into court, which is exactly what the D.C. Circuit appeal puts in play. In Canada, that same access question is usually answered through a human rights body, and at the constitutional level through the Charter, rather than through a private damages suit.
None of this is legal advice, and every situation is different. A person in Canada who runs into an access barrier with a government service can learn more from the relevant human rights commission, or from a community legal clinic, about how a complaint works and what timelines apply. For the American case, the next real marker is the oral argument on 6 October 2026, and then the panel’s decision. We will report what the court decides when it does.
Frequently asked questions
What is the National Association of the Deaf case about?
The association, together with Derrick Ford, a Deaf individual, sued the White House after it stopped including American Sign Language interpreters at press briefings in early 2025. The claim rests on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. On 4 November 2025 US District Judge Amir H. Ali issued a preliminary injunction ordering the White House to begin providing a simultaneous and publicly accessible feed with visible American Sign Language interpretation by a qualified interpreter for all publicly announced White House press briefings conducted by the President or the White House Press Secretary that are captured by White House communication channels, and the White House then began including interpreters at some events.
What is the government arguing on appeal about Section 504?
Justice Department attorneys wrote that the Rehabilitation Act’s text, structure, and history make clear that Section 504, even assuming it provides for an individual right, does not provide a private right of action against federal agencies in their programmatic capacities. In plain terms, the government contends a person cannot sue a federal agency directly under Section 504 and should bring claims through the Administrative Procedure Act instead. Disability advocates say that reading is out of step with how the law has worked for decades. A court has not resolved the question.
How does Canada handle an access complaint against government?
Mainly through two routes rather than a private damages suit. The first is a human rights complaint: disability is a prohibited ground under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which treats denying or treating someone unfavourably when offering goods, services, facilities or accommodation as a discriminatory practice. Federal bodies fall under the Canadian Human Rights Commission, while health care, education, housing and most employment are provincial. The second is the Charter. Alongside both sits accessibility legislation enforced by regulators.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide in Eldridge?
In Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), decided in 1997, Deaf appellants argued that without funded interpreters they received a lesser quality of medical service than hearing patients. The Court agreed, finding that the failure to provide sign language interpreters adversely affected the quality of an indispensable component of the delivery of medical services, that this was discrimination on the basis of physical disability under section 15(1) of the Charter, and declaring the failure unconstitutional.
How much compensation can the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal order?
Under section 53 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, remedies include compensation not exceeding twenty thousand dollars for any pain and suffering under section 53(2)(e), and a further amount not exceeding twenty thousand dollars under section 53(3) where the person is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice wilfully or recklessly. Nothing here is legal advice, and a person who runs into an access barrier with a government service can ask the relevant human rights commission or a community legal clinic how a complaint works and what timelines apply.
Sources
- Michelle Diament, “White House Wants To Make It Harder For People With Disabilities To Sue Federal Agencies,” Disability Scoop, 16 July 2026.
- “DREDF Files Amicus Brief to Defend Disabled People’s Right to Take Federal Agencies to Court,” Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, 4 June 2026.
- Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, section 53 (remedies). Justice Laws.
- “About the Act” (prohibited grounds, discriminatory practices, remedies), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
- Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624, 1997 CanLII 327 (SCC).
- Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), case summary, Global Health and Human Rights Database.
- “Eldridge Case,” The Canadian Encyclopedia.
- National Association of the Deaf v. Trump, Memorandum Opinion and preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 4 November 2025.
- “NAD Returns to Court to Defend Equal Access,” National Association of the Deaf, 22 September 2026 (oral argument set for 6 October 2026).
- Brief of Amici Curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellees, National Association of the Deaf and Derrick Ford v. Trump, No. 25-5402 (D.C. Cir.), 2 June 2026.
- Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, section 3 (prohibited grounds) and section 5 (discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation). Justice Laws.
