ADA Title II Web Rule Under Threat: DOJ May Delay or Weaken April 2026 Deadline

1. What Happened: The February 13 OIRA Filing

On February 13, 2026, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) — part of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — announced that the Department of Justice had submitted an Interim Final Rule (IFR) for review. The filing concerns the ADA Title II web and mobile accessibility rule — the same regulation that established the April 24, 2026 compliance deadline for state and local government websites.

The filing, tracked under RIN 1190-AA82, is titled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities." The OIRA listing reveals several details about the filing but — critically — does not disclose the actual contents of the proposed changes.

This matters enormously because an Interim Final Rule is not the same as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). An IFR can take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register — without a prior public comment period. In other words, the DOJ could publish changes to the accessibility rule that take effect right away, potentially altering requirements that thousands of government entities have been preparing for over the past two years.

As accessibility attorney Lainey Feingold of LFLegal wrote: "An Interim Final Rule has never been used for an accessibility regulation." This alone should signal the gravity of the moment.

The timing is also notable. The April 24, 2026 deadline for entities serving populations of 50,000 or more is just weeks away. Any modification published now would land in the middle of ongoing compliance efforts — efforts that many jurisdictions have invested significant time and resources into based on the original rule's requirements.

2. Timeline: From Landmark Rule to Potential Reversal

To understand why the current situation is so significant, it helps to see the full arc of the ADA Title II web accessibility rule — from its origins to this moment of uncertainty.

It took the DOJ over 14 years — from the first Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010 to the 2024 final rule — to establish this web accessibility standard. The rule went through extensive public comment and review. Now, just months before the first compliance deadline, the DOJ is moving to modify it through a mechanism that bypasses the very public engagement that made the original rule so robust.

3. What Is an Interim Final Rule — and Why Experts Are Alarmed

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the standard process for modifying federal regulations follows a predictable path: the agency publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the public has an opportunity to comment, the agency considers those comments, and then it publishes a final rule. This process typically takes months or years, but it ensures transparency and public participation.

An Interim Final Rule (IFR) is fundamentally different. An IFR takes effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register — before any public comment period. While the APA allows agencies to include a post-publication comment period, the rule is already in force while those comments are collected. In practice, this means the changes happen first, and the public gets to weigh in after the fact.

The APA only permits agencies to skip the notice-and-comment process when there is "good cause" — typically in emergencies, situations where notice would be impractical or contrary to the public interest, or when the rule involves purely procedural matters.

The distinction between an NPRM and an IFR is not merely procedural — it's substantive. When the DOJ published the original NPRM in 2022, it received thousands of comments that shaped the final rule. Input from municipalities led to the tiered deadline structure. Feedback from universities influenced the scope of coverage. Comments from disability rights organizations strengthened enforcement provisions. Bypassing this process means any modifications will lack the benefit of this broad input.

As Converge Accessibility noted, even if the IFR includes a post-publication comment period, the damage may already be done: entities might use the modified rule as justification to pause or abandon compliance efforts, even if the changes are later revised based on public input.

4. What Could Change: Scenarios and Possibilities

Because the IFR's contents have not been made public, we are working with informed speculation based on the DOJ's September 2025 statements, advocacy group communications, and the OIRA filing details. Here are the most likely scenarios for what the IFR could contain, roughly ordered from most to least probable.

It's also possible the IFR combines elements — for instance, extending the deadline while also introducing cost exemptions for the smallest jurisdictions. Regardless of the specific changes, the consensus among legal experts is that the core requirement for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance is likely to survive in some form. The question is the timeline and scope.

5. Who's Pushing for Changes — and Why

Several organizations have been actively lobbying to weaken or delay the ADA Title II web accessibility rule. Understanding their positions helps clarify the political dynamics at play.

League of Minnesota Cities and National League of Cities

The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the National League of Cities (NLC) have been the most visible advocates for changes. They've been pushing OMB directly for relaxed rules and cost exemptions, arguing that smaller municipalities face disproportionate compliance burdens. The NLC has been actively collecting compliance cost data from member cities to present to OIRA, framing the issue as one of fiscal responsibility for budget-constrained local governments.

Their argument is not without merit from a practical standpoint — a small city with a population of 50,000 and a limited IT budget does face different challenges than a large metropolitan area. However, critics note that accessibility is a civil right, and the population threshold already distinguishes between larger and smaller entities. The rule's "undue burden" provision also provides an existing safety valve for situations where compliance is genuinely impractical.

American Council on Education (ACE) and EDUCAUSE

In the higher education space, ACE and EDUCAUSE previously pushed for suspension or weakening of the rule as it applies to universities and colleges. Their concerns centered on the massive volume of digital content produced by academic institutions — research papers, course materials, lecture recordings, student portals, and archival content — and the cost of bringing it all into WCAG 2.1 AA compliance.

Public universities are Title II entities, making them subject to the same deadlines as city and county governments. ACE argued that the unique nature of academic content — particularly research materials and historical archives — requires different treatment than standard government web content.

Congressional Pressure

While the IFR is a DOJ action, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Members of Congress have been introducing bills aimed at limiting ADA web accessibility requirements and lawsuits. H.R. 7328, the "Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act" sponsored by Rep. Graves (R-Mo.), specifically targets ADA website accessibility litigation. This legislative activity creates pressure on the DOJ to show it's addressing concerns from constituents about compliance costs.

What the Disability Community Is Saying

Disability rights organizations have been clear: any weakening of the rule would be a step backward for civil rights. The rule took 14 years to finalize. People with disabilities have been waiting decades for enforceable standards that guarantee equal access to government digital services — services that are increasingly the primary (or only) way to interact with government.

As LFLegal emphasizes, this isn't just about websites — it's about whether people who are blind, deaf, have motor disabilities, or have cognitive impairments can access government services with the same independence and dignity as everyone else. Paying taxes, renewing a license, filing a permit, accessing public health information — these are fundamental government functions that have moved online.

6. Why Legal Experts Think the IFR Could Be Challenged

Even if the IFR is published and takes effect, it faces significant legal vulnerability. Several factors make any attempt to weaken the rule through an IFR particularly susceptible to court challenge.

The Chevron Deference Problem

In June 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For 40 years, Chevron required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Without Chevron, courts now independently interpret what statutes mean — including the ADA.

This cuts both ways. On one hand, it means any new, weakened interpretation of Title II won't receive automatic deference. Courts could independently conclude that the ADA requires robust web accessibility — potentially stronger requirements than the DOJ's modified rule. On the other hand, it also means the original 2024 rule's specific requirements could be challenged. However, disability rights advocates may actually benefit from this dynamic: courts independently reviewing the ADA are likely to find that accessible digital services are required by the statute's plain text.

Administrative Procedure Act Requirements

The APA requires agencies to demonstrate "good cause" when bypassing the notice-and-comment process. Converge Accessibility has questioned whether the DOJ can establish good cause here. The rule has been in effect since April 2024. Entities have had nearly two years to prepare. There's no emergency — the compliance deadline is an approaching date, not a sudden crisis. Courts have consistently held that agencies cannot use the "good cause" exception simply because they find the standard process inconvenient or time-consuming.

DOJ Staffing Issues

The DOJ has fired attorneys within the Civil Rights Division who could have handled a proper NPRM rulemaking process. This raises a troubling question: is the DOJ using the IFR mechanism not because there's genuine "good cause" to bypass public comment, but because it lacks the personnel to conduct a normal rulemaking? If so, this is precisely the kind of self-created constraint that courts have rejected as justification for bypassing APA requirements.

Reliance Interests

Thousands of government entities have relied on the rule's requirements and timeline in making compliance investments. Under the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations and Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, agencies must consider the reliance interests of parties who acted based on existing rules. Jurisdictions that have already spent significant resources preparing for the April 2026 deadline have a strong argument that any modification must account for their investments.

7. The ADA Still Applies: This Rule Isn't the Only Legal Basis for Web Accessibility

This is perhaps the most important point in this entire article, and it's one that every legal expert has emphasized: the ADA Title II web accessibility rule is not the sole legal basis for requiring accessible government websites.

ADA Title II itself — the statute, not the regulation — has required state and local governments to provide accessible services to people with disabilities since 1990. The 2024 rule added a specific technical standard (WCAG 2.1 AA) and a compliance timeline, but the underlying legal requirement predates the rule by over 30 years.

Consider the legal landscape that exists independently of the 2024 rule:

• DOJ enforcement history: The DOJ has been bringing web accessibility enforcement actions against government entities since the early 2000s — long before the 2024 rule existed. Settlement agreements have consistently referenced WCAG as the applicable standard.
• Court decisions: Federal courts have consistently held that inaccessible government websites violate ADA Title II. These rulings don't depend on the 2024 regulation — they interpret the statute itself.
• Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Entities that receive federal funding are also subject to Section 508, which already incorporates WCAG 2.0 AA standards. Many state and local governments receive federal funds.
• State laws: An increasing number of states are passing their own web accessibility requirements, creating independent legal obligations. See our state accessibility law tracker for current legislation.
• The ADA.gov guidance: The DOJ's own guidance on first steps for compliance remains published, and WCAG 2.1 AA continues to be the standard referenced across federal guidance.

In practical terms, this means that even if the DOJ delays the deadline, reduces the scope of the rule, or introduces exemptions, the fundamental requirement for accessible government websites remains. Any entity that treats a modification of the 2024 rule as permission to abandon accessibility efforts is still exposed to lawsuits, DOJ enforcement actions, Section 508 complaints, and state law violations.

As Lainey Feingold puts it: the rule added clarity and a timeline. Removing the rule doesn't remove the obligation.

8. Impact on State and Local Governments Already Preparing

For the thousands of state and local government entities that have been preparing for the April 24, 2026 deadline, the uncertainty created by the IFR presents a genuine operational dilemma.

Many entities are in the middle of significant compliance investments: they've hired accessibility consultants, contracted with remediation firms, retrained staff, updated procurement policies, and begun systematic content audits. Some have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. The prospect of rule changes mid-stream creates three distinct problems.

The "Wait and See" Trap

The most dangerous outcome of the IFR announcement isn't any specific change to the rule — it's the temptation to pause. Entities that halt compliance efforts while waiting for clarity risk finding themselves unprepared if the original deadline holds, if the IFR introduces only minor modifications, or if the IFR is struck down in court.

Accessibility experts are unanimous on this point: do not stop. Even if the deadline shifts, the work you're doing now will be required eventually. Pausing creates a larger compliance gap that will be more expensive and time-consuming to close later.

Sunk Cost Concerns

Entities that have already invested heavily in compliance may feel frustrated that the goalposts could move. However, it's important to recognize that accessibility work is never wasted. WCAG 2.1 AA compliance improves usability for all users, reduces legal risk from multiple legal frameworks (not just the 2024 rule), and often reveals other technical issues like broken links, missing metadata, and poor mobile optimization. These improvements have value regardless of the regulatory timeline.

What Governments Should Do Right Now

• Continue compliance work. Do not pause audits, remediation, or training based on speculation about what the IFR might contain.
• Document your efforts. Keep detailed records of your compliance investments, timelines, and progress. If the rule is modified, this documentation supports any undue burden claims and demonstrates good faith.
• Prioritize high-impact content. Focus on the most-used public-facing services: online payments, permit applications, public meeting information, and emergency alerts. This is where accessibility has the greatest civil rights impact and where litigation risk is highest.
• Monitor developments. Subscribe to updates from LFLegal, Converge Accessibility, and the Federal Register for publication of the IFR.
• Run a free accessibility scan to establish a baseline of your current compliance status. This gives you a clear picture of where you stand regardless of what happens.

9. Related Legislative Activity: Federal and State Bills

The DOJ's IFR is not the only front in the fight over web accessibility requirements. Parallel legislative activity at both the federal and state levels is shaping the landscape. Our state ADA reform law tracker covers these developments in detail, but here are the key bills to watch.

H.R. 7328 — "Protecting Small Businesses from Predatory Website Lawsuits Act"

Sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), this federal bill targets ADA website accessibility lawsuits against small businesses. While primarily aimed at Title III (private businesses) rather than Title II (government entities), it reflects the broader political push to reduce accessibility litigation. The bill would create procedural hurdles for plaintiffs filing web accessibility claims, potentially reducing the enforcement mechanism that has driven much of the private-sector compliance progress.

New Mexico HB 295 — State Accessibility Standards

In a counter-trend to the federal level, New Mexico HB 295 would establish state-level accessibility standards. A similar bill was vetoed last year, but its reintroduction signals growing state-level interest in codifying web accessibility requirements — potentially creating obligations that would survive any weakening of the federal rule. States like New Mexico may be moving to fill the gap if the federal standard retreats.

California AB 2190 — Website Accessibility Defenses and Provider Duties

California continues to be a major arena for accessibility law. AB 2190 would establish website accessibility defenses and define provider duties — building on the state's existing right-to-cure framework under SB 84. These state-level developments are significant because they create compliance obligations independent of what happens at the federal level.

Prince Street Pizza Case (S.D. Fla. 2026)

In a related but distinct development, the Prince Street Pizza case was dismissed in the Southern District of Florida for lack of nexus — meaning the court found insufficient connection between the plaintiff and the defendant's location. While this is a Title III case, it illustrates the ongoing judicial scrutiny of web accessibility claims and the evolving legal standards for standing in these cases. See our analysis of AI-driven ADA lawsuit trends for more context on how the litigation landscape is shifting.

The broader pattern is clear: while there's pressure at the federal level to relax enforcement, states are increasingly stepping in with their own requirements. Organizations operating in states like California, Utah, and Missouri (which are taking different approaches) need to track both federal and state developments.

10. What This Means for Businesses: Title III Isn't Going Anywhere

While the IFR targets ADA Title II (state and local government entities), private businesses should not interpret this as a signal that web accessibility requirements are easing more broadly. The reality is quite different.

ADA Title III — which governs public accommodations (private businesses open to the public) — continues to generate thousands of web accessibility lawsuits each year. Recent data shows web accessibility lawsuits filed under Title III increased significantly in 2025, with AI-powered tools making it easier for individuals to identify and file claims. Nothing about the Title II IFR affects this trend.

Additionally, the FTC's enforcement actions against accessibility overlay providers — including a $1 million fine against a major overlay provider for deceptive compliance claims — underscore that there are no shortcuts to genuine accessibility. The legal and regulatory environment continues to demand real WCAG compliance, not automated band-aids.

11. Four Scenarios: What Each Means for Your Compliance

To help organizations plan amid uncertainty, here's a framework for the four most likely outcomes and what each means for your compliance strategy.

The key insight across all four scenarios: WCAG 2.1 AA compliance is the right target regardless of what happens. In every scenario, the work you do now has value. In no scenario does abandoning accessibility efforts make strategic sense.

12. Five-Step Action Plan: What to Do No Matter What Happens

Whatever the IFR ultimately contains, these five steps protect your organization under any outcome. They're derived from guidance provided by accessibility legal experts including LFLegal, Converge Accessibility, and established best practices for ADA Title II compliance.

14. Frequently Asked Questions