These comments are available as a PDF here.
June 22, 2026
Harmeet Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: RIN 1190-AA82 Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance: Interim Final Rule
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) writes to express our strong opposition to the Interim Final Rule (IFR) published by the Department of Justice (Department) extending the compliance dates for the 2024 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance Final Rule (2024 Final Rule). ASAN is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit disability rights advocacy organization created by and for autistic people ourselves
ASAN comments to oppose the extension of compliance dates included in the IFR. Individuals with disabilities have a guaranteed right to participate in all services, programs, and activities provided by state and local governments. Public entities rely on websites and mobile applications (apps) to allow individuals to register to vote, enroll in public benefits, pay a parking ticket, and many other essential government functions. Delaying compliance dates delays access to these vital government functions for individuals with disabilities.
As written, the IFR is concerning for a multitude of reasons. ASAN understands the change in compliance dates to violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)1 because of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the rulemaking justifications presented by the Department, including the blatant prioritization of the requests and reactions of public entities, factually incorrect analysis of the 2024 Final Rule, and lack of analysis of the overwhelming costs that would be incurred by individuals with disabilities. The Department’s decision to forgo the notice and comment procedure additionally violates the APA due to the substantive changes presented in the IFR. Many disability rights organizations, such as those signed on to this comment, have organizational and personal concerns with the delay in compliance date, and the Department would have benefited from a notice and comment period. ASAN therefore submits the following comments addressing the concerns of the disability community and highlighting the harms that a delay in compliance dates will have on people with disabilities.
Prioritization of Reactions of Public Entities
The justification for a delay in compliance dates and following discussion in the IFR predominantly includes analysis of the impact and reactions of public entities in response to the 2024 Final Rule. We find this analysis unconvincing and disappointing as it ignores the statutory purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was promulgated by Congress with the intention of increasing access and civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities.2 The Department’s prioritization of the responses of public entities ignores the very real concerns of the disability community and demonstrates that the Department is more interested in the alleged monetary and legal concerns of public entities, ignoring the historical inaccessibility of state and local government websites and mobile apps.
Public entities have been acutely aware of the possibility of the Department implementing web accessibility standards for over a decade, and the two and three year compliance dates provided adequate notice for entities to come into compliance. In fact, for decades, the Department has found that websites and mobile applications are considered to be a service, program, or activity provided by public entities3 and thus have found entities in violation of the ADA for failure to accommodate individuals with disabilities.4 Entities have thus been aware that websites and mobile apps exist within the framework of Title II of the ADA. The inclusion of the WCAG 2.1 standards within the 2024 Final Rule was intended to assist public entities by providing a set of guidelines to ensure their websites are compliant and avoid further lawsuits.
The concerns raised by public entities are not new.
Additionally, the concerns of public entities raised by the Department regarding the finalized rule are not new concerns. The 2026 and 2027 compliance dates were chosen because of public input in the notice and comment period and were responsive to a variety of stakeholders, including public entities. The Department went through the proper protocol of notice and comment, allowing individuals and entities to voice their concerns and suggestions regarding what the compliance dates should be, and implemented the two and three year timeframes after careful consideration. The comments and materials that the Department is claiming came after the implementation of the 2024 Final Rule, were already represented in the public comments submitted, making the IFR under question redundant to the process already undertaken by the Department.
Public Entities request technical assistance rather than extension of dates.
The Department states throughout the IFR that entities are confused about the standards presented within the original final rule including the dates in which they were supposed to comply. As the Department states, many public entities have requested technical assistance to assist in their compliance efforts. The Department instead, “decided to extend the compliance deadline instead,”5 ignoring the requests of public entities. While some entities may have requested an extension in the compliance dates, many public entities have begun to comply with the original regulation, and are now subject to more confusion due to changes in the compliance dates. A change in compliance dates does not satisfy entities’ requests for technical assistance and does not allow for entities to succeed with a further compliance date, it simply acts to extend the confusion expressed by public entities.
Incorrect Analysis of Final Rule
The Interim Final Rule makes numerous factual and analytical errors when discussing the 2024 Final Rule. The resulting misleading justification therefore leads us to believe that the IFR was undertaken without proper analysis and forethought that is required when promulgating a regulation.
Incorrect assertion of variable standards.
For example, the Department claims multiple times that the WCAG 2.1 Level AA Standards included within the 2024 Final Rule are subject to change, calling the standards, “untenable, dynamic technical standards.”6 The 2024 Final Rule was clear that the Department is implementing the June 2018 version of WCAG 2.1 AA, going into depth about why that version was chosen in comparison to other versions of WCAG. The Department goes on to further claim that the website page containing the standards could be changed without notice to public entities. The 2024 Final Rule included multiple Permalinks to the WCAG 2.1 standards being implemented7 providing a link to the standards that will never be deleted or modified, as is standard practice in the rulemaking process.8 These Permalinks provide permanent access to the standards, as required for compliance, making the Department’s concerns of “dynamic” webpages moot.
The Department additionally states that any resources published on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) website assisting entities to comply with WCAG 2.1, “are dynamic and can be changed outside of the Department’s rulemaking processes.”9 The resources provided by W3C act as a technical assistance resource for entities provided by a third party outside of the government. Even if the technical assistance materials and resources stemmed from the Department, those documents are not required to go through the notice and comment process under the APA,10 and do not change the substance of the standards as they are considered nonbinding advice for public entities. Because the W3C is an outside private entity, they are entitled to publish whatever materials they deem necessary without interference from the Department.
The Department seems to call the practice of implementing outside standards a generally questionable decision. The Department has historically utilized previously created standards when promulgating rulemakings, specifically in the physical space. For physical accessibility, the Department has adopted standards crafted by the Access Board,11 relying on the expertise of outside accessibility organizations.12 The WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards created by the W3C went through thorough analysis and vetting by the Department and other government experts in order to ensure that the standards adequately provided accessibility standards for usability as well as didn’t create an undue burden or fundamental alteration to public entities’ services, programs, and activities.
Incorrect assumption regarding the education exception.
Another error in analysis presented by the Department is that the IFR is wrong in its claim that an extra year is required because the education exception that was suggested in the NPRM was removed upon publication of the 2024 Final Rule. The Department claims that the exclusion of the proposed exemption in the final rule has created confusion and therefore entities need an extra year to come into compliance. We find this excuse entirely meritless as the point of the notice and comment period is to be responsive to public comments. The Department received feedback from a variety of entities that the education exception should be removed, and the Department ultimately decided to respond to that comment thread. It is a common practice for final rules to differ from the proposed rule as agencies review the comments and address the concerns and suggestions of entities. If changes from NPRM to final rule were sufficient to justify giving entities additional time beyond the effective date, no rule would ever have finality. Additionally, the Department provided no evidence that public entities are in fact confused about the removal of the provision, providing a meritless argument.
False assertion regarding artificial intelligence.
The Department additionally relies on an argument centered around the development or lack thereof of artificial intelligence (AI) to justify a delay in compliance dates. They write that “the advancement and availability of technology did not meet the Department’s expectations.”13 This analysis is wholly incorrect and unnecessary as the original final rule did not mention AI once in analyzing the selection of the compliance dates or in any other capacity. While it is likely that some entities are utilizing AI to remediate their websites and mobile apps, in the previous rule, the Department stayed silent on whether or not advancements in technology influenced when entities must come into compliance. The IFR also states that AI is not a reliable way to provide accessibility measures14 such as alternative text. This argument works against the Department as it demonstrates that compliance standards are needed immediately as it is likely that entities are relying on tools that provide inaccessible content.
Even if the 2024 Final Rule included a consideration of AI, the final rule clearly states that the burden is on the public entities to ensure compliance with the standards, not relying on third parties or contractual agreements, which would logically include AI technologies. The Department’s claim that they previously considered the impact of AI on compliance is a concerning and confusing justification that does not rationalize the need to extend compliance dates by one year, and actually demonstrates that compliance standards are necessary.
False claims regarding international actor interference.
The Department additionally included an entirely meritless argument that “litigation may be funded by international actors to intentionally disrupt government operations.”15 In order for an individual to bring a lawsuit against a public entity, they must establish a connection with the public entity, demonstrating that it would be extremely difficult for this situation to occur. The situation that the Department is describing is a hypothetical that has been conjured in order to scare the public into agreeing with the delay in compliance dates. The Department offered no instances in which this situation has ever occurred, basing the argument on a meritless hypothesis.
Impacts on People with Disabilities
As state and local governments utilize websites and mobile apps more frequently to provide services, programs, and activities to their constituents, many individuals with disabilities continue to be excluded. The finalization of the 2024 Final Rule represented a major milestone for individuals with disabilities as it greatly improves access to services that have been historically inaccessible. ASAN therefore finds the most egregious error in the Interim Final Rule to be the continued delay of accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Aside from the legal requirement under Title II for public entities to make their services, programs, and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities, our community deserves to have access to all facets of society, including those provided online.
The Department states that the “IFR might benefit persons with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations because, as we already explained, it replaces the potential for wasted time and money in litigation with the opportunity for covered entities’ to achieve actual compliance with the rule.”16 This argument is insulting to the disability community who has fought for decades to ensure equal access. The best use of time for public entities is to make their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities, not prepare for the slight possibility of a legal challenge. The threat of litigation being used as a reason to continue to deny access to people with disabilities is not a legitimate argument for delaying the compliance date and overwhelmingly puts public entities’ concerns of legal risk above the rights of our community.
Opposition to a proposal of an additional rule change.
Additionally, we are extremely concerned about the Department’s plan to engage in a future rulemaking process on the substance of the 2024 final regulation. Any further changes to the rule will harm people with disabilities who have been waiting for over a decade for the Department to ensure access to all services, programs, and activities provided by public entities. The extension of the compliance date already harms the disability community, and changing the substance of the rule will exponentially continue this harm.
The proposal to change the rule in any capacity included in the IFR will additionally disincentivize public entities from working towards compliance as they are likely to assume the regulation will continue to change in the future. If entities aren’t working towards compliance because of the promise of a future NPRM, people with disabilities will continue to be denied access to vital services provided by state and local governments. The suggestion of another rulemaking is likely to increase confusion amongst public entities as they try to determine if they should be working towards compliance, going against the stated goal of the IFR to reduce confusion. Most importantly, individuals with disabilities need the standards in the 2024 Final Rule to fully participate in modern society. Any change to the previously established regulation puts the disability community in continued danger as more and more government services move to websites and mobile apps.
Incorrect cost-benefit analysis.
The economic analysis included within the IFR clearly demonstrates the blatant disregard for people with disabilities. Noticeably, the Department chose to not discuss any of the costs associated with the compliance date extension. The delayed date comes with major costs to people with disabilities, specifically in terms of qualitative costs. The 2024 Final Rule calculated massive benefits stemming from the 2026/2027 compliance dates including independence, self-determination, and increased dignity. Delaying the compliance dates for the final rule will increase the costs to the disability community, greatly impacting the cost benefit analysis. The Department failed to account for these differences, resulting in the entire cost benefit analysis needing to be discounted. The failure to address any associated costs creates a false narrative suggesting that there are only benefits stemming from the IFR. The analysis seems to rest on the assumption that delaying the implementation of the rule by one year automatically increases savings without being realistic about the costs that this action has on the individuals who are intended to be aided by the regulation.
Conclusion
ASAN appreciates the opportunity to comment on the discussed Interim Final Rule. We are extremely disappointed by the actions taken by the Department which in effect, continue to deny individuals with disabilities access to state and local governments. The IFR will lead to confusion for public entities and continue the discrimination facing individuals with disabilities. Changing the compliance deadline a mere four days before the deadline has led to distrust in the Department’s rulemaking capabilities and functionally manufactured confusion instead of easing it. ASAN therefore recommends that the IFR be overturned and compliance dates remain as established in the 2024 Final Rule.
ASAN opposes the Department of Justice’s delay to digital accessibility
These comments are available as a PDF here.
June 22, 2026
Harmeet Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: RIN 1190-AA82 Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance: Interim Final Rule
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) writes to express our strong opposition to the Interim Final Rule (IFR) published by the Department of Justice (Department) extending the compliance dates for the 2024 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance Final Rule (2024 Final Rule). ASAN is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit disability rights advocacy organization created by and for autistic people ourselves
ASAN comments to oppose the extension of compliance dates included in the IFR. Individuals with disabilities have a guaranteed right to participate in all services, programs, and activities provided by state and local governments. Public entities rely on websites and mobile applications (apps) to allow individuals to register to vote, enroll in public benefits, pay a parking ticket, and many other essential government functions. Delaying compliance dates delays access to these vital government functions for individuals with disabilities.
As written, the IFR is concerning for a multitude of reasons. ASAN understands the change in compliance dates to violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)1 because of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the rulemaking justifications presented by the Department, including the blatant prioritization of the requests and reactions of public entities, factually incorrect analysis of the 2024 Final Rule, and lack of analysis of the overwhelming costs that would be incurred by individuals with disabilities. The Department’s decision to forgo the notice and comment procedure additionally violates the APA due to the substantive changes presented in the IFR. Many disability rights organizations, such as those signed on to this comment, have organizational and personal concerns with the delay in compliance date, and the Department would have benefited from a notice and comment period. ASAN therefore submits the following comments addressing the concerns of the disability community and highlighting the harms that a delay in compliance dates will have on people with disabilities.
Prioritization of Reactions of Public Entities
The justification for a delay in compliance dates and following discussion in the IFR predominantly includes analysis of the impact and reactions of public entities in response to the 2024 Final Rule. We find this analysis unconvincing and disappointing as it ignores the statutory purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was promulgated by Congress with the intention of increasing access and civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities.2 The Department’s prioritization of the responses of public entities ignores the very real concerns of the disability community and demonstrates that the Department is more interested in the alleged monetary and legal concerns of public entities, ignoring the historical inaccessibility of state and local government websites and mobile apps.
Public entities have been acutely aware of the possibility of the Department implementing web accessibility standards for over a decade, and the two and three year compliance dates provided adequate notice for entities to come into compliance. In fact, for decades, the Department has found that websites and mobile applications are considered to be a service, program, or activity provided by public entities3 and thus have found entities in violation of the ADA for failure to accommodate individuals with disabilities.4 Entities have thus been aware that websites and mobile apps exist within the framework of Title II of the ADA. The inclusion of the WCAG 2.1 standards within the 2024 Final Rule was intended to assist public entities by providing a set of guidelines to ensure their websites are compliant and avoid further lawsuits.
The concerns raised by public entities are not new.
Additionally, the concerns of public entities raised by the Department regarding the finalized rule are not new concerns. The 2026 and 2027 compliance dates were chosen because of public input in the notice and comment period and were responsive to a variety of stakeholders, including public entities. The Department went through the proper protocol of notice and comment, allowing individuals and entities to voice their concerns and suggestions regarding what the compliance dates should be, and implemented the two and three year timeframes after careful consideration. The comments and materials that the Department is claiming came after the implementation of the 2024 Final Rule, were already represented in the public comments submitted, making the IFR under question redundant to the process already undertaken by the Department.
Public Entities request technical assistance rather than extension of dates.
The Department states throughout the IFR that entities are confused about the standards presented within the original final rule including the dates in which they were supposed to comply. As the Department states, many public entities have requested technical assistance to assist in their compliance efforts. The Department instead, “decided to extend the compliance deadline instead,”5 ignoring the requests of public entities. While some entities may have requested an extension in the compliance dates, many public entities have begun to comply with the original regulation, and are now subject to more confusion due to changes in the compliance dates. A change in compliance dates does not satisfy entities’ requests for technical assistance and does not allow for entities to succeed with a further compliance date, it simply acts to extend the confusion expressed by public entities.
Incorrect Analysis of Final Rule
The Interim Final Rule makes numerous factual and analytical errors when discussing the 2024 Final Rule. The resulting misleading justification therefore leads us to believe that the IFR was undertaken without proper analysis and forethought that is required when promulgating a regulation.
Incorrect assertion of variable standards.
For example, the Department claims multiple times that the WCAG 2.1 Level AA Standards included within the 2024 Final Rule are subject to change, calling the standards, “untenable, dynamic technical standards.”6 The 2024 Final Rule was clear that the Department is implementing the June 2018 version of WCAG 2.1 AA, going into depth about why that version was chosen in comparison to other versions of WCAG. The Department goes on to further claim that the website page containing the standards could be changed without notice to public entities. The 2024 Final Rule included multiple Permalinks to the WCAG 2.1 standards being implemented7 providing a link to the standards that will never be deleted or modified, as is standard practice in the rulemaking process.8 These Permalinks provide permanent access to the standards, as required for compliance, making the Department’s concerns of “dynamic” webpages moot.
The Department additionally states that any resources published on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) website assisting entities to comply with WCAG 2.1, “are dynamic and can be changed outside of the Department’s rulemaking processes.”9 The resources provided by W3C act as a technical assistance resource for entities provided by a third party outside of the government. Even if the technical assistance materials and resources stemmed from the Department, those documents are not required to go through the notice and comment process under the APA,10 and do not change the substance of the standards as they are considered nonbinding advice for public entities. Because the W3C is an outside private entity, they are entitled to publish whatever materials they deem necessary without interference from the Department.
The Department seems to call the practice of implementing outside standards a generally questionable decision. The Department has historically utilized previously created standards when promulgating rulemakings, specifically in the physical space. For physical accessibility, the Department has adopted standards crafted by the Access Board,11 relying on the expertise of outside accessibility organizations.12 The WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards created by the W3C went through thorough analysis and vetting by the Department and other government experts in order to ensure that the standards adequately provided accessibility standards for usability as well as didn’t create an undue burden or fundamental alteration to public entities’ services, programs, and activities.
Incorrect assumption regarding the education exception.
Another error in analysis presented by the Department is that the IFR is wrong in its claim that an extra year is required because the education exception that was suggested in the NPRM was removed upon publication of the 2024 Final Rule. The Department claims that the exclusion of the proposed exemption in the final rule has created confusion and therefore entities need an extra year to come into compliance. We find this excuse entirely meritless as the point of the notice and comment period is to be responsive to public comments. The Department received feedback from a variety of entities that the education exception should be removed, and the Department ultimately decided to respond to that comment thread. It is a common practice for final rules to differ from the proposed rule as agencies review the comments and address the concerns and suggestions of entities. If changes from NPRM to final rule were sufficient to justify giving entities additional time beyond the effective date, no rule would ever have finality. Additionally, the Department provided no evidence that public entities are in fact confused about the removal of the provision, providing a meritless argument.
False assertion regarding artificial intelligence.
The Department additionally relies on an argument centered around the development or lack thereof of artificial intelligence (AI) to justify a delay in compliance dates. They write that “the advancement and availability of technology did not meet the Department’s expectations.”13 This analysis is wholly incorrect and unnecessary as the original final rule did not mention AI once in analyzing the selection of the compliance dates or in any other capacity. While it is likely that some entities are utilizing AI to remediate their websites and mobile apps, in the previous rule, the Department stayed silent on whether or not advancements in technology influenced when entities must come into compliance. The IFR also states that AI is not a reliable way to provide accessibility measures14 such as alternative text. This argument works against the Department as it demonstrates that compliance standards are needed immediately as it is likely that entities are relying on tools that provide inaccessible content.
Even if the 2024 Final Rule included a consideration of AI, the final rule clearly states that the burden is on the public entities to ensure compliance with the standards, not relying on third parties or contractual agreements, which would logically include AI technologies. The Department’s claim that they previously considered the impact of AI on compliance is a concerning and confusing justification that does not rationalize the need to extend compliance dates by one year, and actually demonstrates that compliance standards are necessary.
False claims regarding international actor interference.
The Department additionally included an entirely meritless argument that “litigation may be funded by international actors to intentionally disrupt government operations.”15 In order for an individual to bring a lawsuit against a public entity, they must establish a connection with the public entity, demonstrating that it would be extremely difficult for this situation to occur. The situation that the Department is describing is a hypothetical that has been conjured in order to scare the public into agreeing with the delay in compliance dates. The Department offered no instances in which this situation has ever occurred, basing the argument on a meritless hypothesis.
Impacts on People with Disabilities
As state and local governments utilize websites and mobile apps more frequently to provide services, programs, and activities to their constituents, many individuals with disabilities continue to be excluded. The finalization of the 2024 Final Rule represented a major milestone for individuals with disabilities as it greatly improves access to services that have been historically inaccessible. ASAN therefore finds the most egregious error in the Interim Final Rule to be the continued delay of accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Aside from the legal requirement under Title II for public entities to make their services, programs, and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities, our community deserves to have access to all facets of society, including those provided online.
The Department states that the “IFR might benefit persons with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations because, as we already explained, it replaces the potential for wasted time and money in litigation with the opportunity for covered entities’ to achieve actual compliance with the rule.”16 This argument is insulting to the disability community who has fought for decades to ensure equal access. The best use of time for public entities is to make their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities, not prepare for the slight possibility of a legal challenge. The threat of litigation being used as a reason to continue to deny access to people with disabilities is not a legitimate argument for delaying the compliance date and overwhelmingly puts public entities’ concerns of legal risk above the rights of our community.
Opposition to a proposal of an additional rule change.
Additionally, we are extremely concerned about the Department’s plan to engage in a future rulemaking process on the substance of the 2024 final regulation. Any further changes to the rule will harm people with disabilities who have been waiting for over a decade for the Department to ensure access to all services, programs, and activities provided by public entities. The extension of the compliance date already harms the disability community, and changing the substance of the rule will exponentially continue this harm.
The proposal to change the rule in any capacity included in the IFR will additionally disincentivize public entities from working towards compliance as they are likely to assume the regulation will continue to change in the future. If entities aren’t working towards compliance because of the promise of a future NPRM, people with disabilities will continue to be denied access to vital services provided by state and local governments. The suggestion of another rulemaking is likely to increase confusion amongst public entities as they try to determine if they should be working towards compliance, going against the stated goal of the IFR to reduce confusion. Most importantly, individuals with disabilities need the standards in the 2024 Final Rule to fully participate in modern society. Any change to the previously established regulation puts the disability community in continued danger as more and more government services move to websites and mobile apps.
Incorrect cost-benefit analysis.
The economic analysis included within the IFR clearly demonstrates the blatant disregard for people with disabilities. Noticeably, the Department chose to not discuss any of the costs associated with the compliance date extension. The delayed date comes with major costs to people with disabilities, specifically in terms of qualitative costs. The 2024 Final Rule calculated massive benefits stemming from the 2026/2027 compliance dates including independence, self-determination, and increased dignity. Delaying the compliance dates for the final rule will increase the costs to the disability community, greatly impacting the cost benefit analysis. The Department failed to account for these differences, resulting in the entire cost benefit analysis needing to be discounted. The failure to address any associated costs creates a false narrative suggesting that there are only benefits stemming from the IFR. The analysis seems to rest on the assumption that delaying the implementation of the rule by one year automatically increases savings without being realistic about the costs that this action has on the individuals who are intended to be aided by the regulation.
Conclusion
ASAN appreciates the opportunity to comment on the discussed Interim Final Rule. We are extremely disappointed by the actions taken by the Department which in effect, continue to deny individuals with disabilities access to state and local governments. The IFR will lead to confusion for public entities and continue the discrimination facing individuals with disabilities. Changing the compliance deadline a mere four days before the deadline has led to distrust in the Department’s rulemaking capabilities and functionally manufactured confusion instead of easing it. ASAN therefore recommends that the IFR be overturned and compliance dates remain as established in the 2024 Final Rule.
↩︎