June 9, 2025
Russell T. Vought
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20504
RE: Recent Letter from the American Council on Education
Dear Mr. Vought:
The National Federation of the Blind, the transformative membership and advocacy organization of blind Americans, writes in response to the letter you received from the American Council on Education dated May 12, 2025 regarding the Department of Justice regulation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) covering the accessibility of state and local government websites and mobile applications (the “website regulation”). The American Council and its co-signatories seek your review and possible reconsideration of the website regulation. We oppose any attempt to delay, rescind, or otherwise undermine the effectiveness of the website regulation.
While reflecting a compromise between the needs of people with disabilities and the resources of covered entities, the clarity provided by the website regulation is important to the lives of people with disabilities, in particular to blind students in public and higher education. Blind students are too often excluded from the curricula their sighted peers enjoy because educational materials are offered digitally through inaccessible websites and mobile applications.
As a result, they are often unable to compete on a level playing field with their peers, are unable to benefit fully from their education, and are delayed in attaining their degrees and entering the workforce. The inaccessibility of educational materials is one of the most significant barriers to blind people being able to achieve their full potential and make their rightful contribution to American society.
Contrary to the American Council’s implications, far from creating ambiguity, the website regulation provides exactly the clarity state and local government institutions, including educational institutions, have been requesting regarding their obligations under Title II of the ADA to make their websites and mobile applications accessible. Since 1990, Title II of the ADA has required state and local governments to ensure their communications with individuals with disabilities are “as effective as” communications with nondisabled individuals.
Since 1996, the Department of Justice has made clear that this obligation includes their communications via the internet and mobile applications. Moreover, the communications of recipients of federal funding, including virtually all public educational institutions, have been subject to that same requirement pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act since 1973. In the decades since, courts and other federal agencies have agreed, and the Department of Justice has issued several guidance documents providing technical assistance to covered entities.
Yet, educational institutions and other state and local government entities have claimed to be unclear exactly how they should comply with the “equally effective communication” obligation. Last year, the Department of Justice issued the website rule. Far from being a surprise to covered entities, the Department first issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) in 2010, which sought information from covered entities and individuals on what should be included in the rule.
The Department received approximately four hundred comments. In 2016, the Department issued a supplemental ANPRM, again soliciting public input, which received more than two hundred comments. In 2023, the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding website and mobile application accessibility requirements, setting forth the Department’s proposals and including more than sixty questions for public comment. The Department received approximately 345 comments. In addition, the Department attended a variety of listening sessions to gather additional input. The final regulation was issued in 2024.
The final rule clarifies what is required to meet Title II’s equally effective communication requirement in the context of state and local government websites and mobile applications. It provides a clear technical standard based on an internationally recognized and widely adopted consensus standard. It also provides flexibility by allowing covered entities to achieve equivalent facilitation and preventing liability for inaccessible elements that do not substantively affect the usability of a website or mobile application.
Notably, the website rule also provides a series of exceptions, presumably implemented at the behest of covered entities, establishing web and mobile application elements and content that do not have to be made accessible. These exceptions are not available under the pre-existing equally effective communication requirement.
Although the equally effective communication requirement has been in effect for decades, the final rule also provides delayed effective dates of two or three years, depending on the size of the affected government. Thus, rather than burdening state and local governments, the rule actually reduces the burdens on those entities. Further, the rule included a comprehensive and careful analysis of the benefits and costs of the regulation, showing that the benefits substantially outweighed the costs.
The website regulation reflects exactly what the American Council purports to seek–a clear, transparent “shared understanding” of the applicable legal requirements. As the American Council recommends, it is “related to education,” is “clear and comprehensible,” does not stray from legislative intent (which made clear that the effective communication requirements of the Rehabilitation Act should be incorporated in the ADA), accurately estimates the costs and burdens, and provides clear safe harbors.
There is no basis for reconsidering the website rule, which has already gone through fourteen years of consideration, public input, and adjustment, and which is based on a requirement in existence for nearly fifty years. On the other hand, delaying or amending the regulation at this point would severely harm blind Americans.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Riccobono, President
National Federation of the Blind