ADA Title II Web Accessibility Rule: Current Status

Current regulatory status

The U.S. Department of Justice published its final rule amending ADA Title II regulations on April 24, 2024, adding Subpart H to 28 CFR Part 35 and adopting WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard for digital content of state and local government entities (Source: 28 CFR Part 35, Subpart H ) . The rule set two compliance deadlines based on population served. In April 2026, DOJ extended both by one year. The current deadlines are:

• April 26, 2027. Public entities serving 50,000 or more people. (Originally April 24, 2026.)
• April 26, 2028. Public entities serving fewer than 50,000 people, and all special district governments regardless of population. (Originally April 26, 2027.)

What the April 2026 IFR did

On April 20, 2026, DOJ published an interim final rule (IFR) that extended both compliance dates by one year (Source: Federal Register, Extension of Compliance Dates (91 FR 20902), April 20, 2026 ) . It took effect immediately.

The IFR was a pure delay. It did not narrow the scope of covered content, change the WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard, or alter the rule’s exceptions. Entities that were preparing to meet the original dates should continue the same work against the new dates; nothing about what compliance requires changed.

What is still pending

Two threads of uncertainty remain, neither of which changes the current deadlines:

Possible future substantive rulemaking

DOJ has signaled that it may revisit substantive provisions of the Title II and Title III accessibility regulations through future rulemaking (regulatory agenda entry RIN 1190-AA82). No proposed text has been published. Any change to the WCAG standard, scope, or exceptions would have to go through its own rulemaking process, and this page will be updated with dated entries if that happens.

Legal challenge to the extension

A disability-advocacy lawsuit challenging the one-year extension as procedurally improper has been filed; the outcome is pending. If a court were to vacate the extension, the earlier dates could be affected. This is a low-probability scenario worth monitoring rather than planning around.

What this does not change

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act has prohibited disability-based discrimination by state and local government entities since 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.). DOJ has interpreted this nondiscrimination obligation to require communications "as effective as" those provided to people without disabilities, including in digital contexts. That obligation does not depend on the 2024 rule and would persist even if the rule were later changed or rescinded.

Before the April 2024 final rule, DOJ enforced web accessibility through settlement agreements that referenced WCAG (typically WCAG 2.0 AA, sometimes WCAG 2.1 AA) as the de facto standard. Those settlements remain valid law-of-the-case for the entities involved, and DOJ retains authority to bring new enforcement actions under the underlying statute.

Three things remain in force regardless of the rule’s fate:

1. The Title II nondiscrimination obligation in 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
2. Existing DOJ settlement agreements with specific entities.
3. State-level digital accessibility laws (see State laws as a regulatory floor).

Private litigation landscape

Private ADA accessibility litigation in federal court has continued at a high volume independent of regulatory activity. According to Seyfarth Shaw's annual ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Report, 8,667 federal ADA accessibility suits were filed in 2025 (Source: Seyfarth Shaw ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Report, 2025 ) .

Most of these are Title III suits brought against private businesses, not Title II suits brought against public entities. However, the same plaintiffs' bar that drives Title III litigation also files Title II complaints, and the underlying legal theories (failure to provide accessible digital content) are similar. OCR complaints, filed administratively rather than in court, are an additional and separate enforcement channel for public entities.

State laws as a regulatory floor

Several states have enacted digital accessibility requirements that apply to state and local public entities independently of the federal rule. These laws create a regulatory floor that persists regardless of federal activity.

• Colorado HB21-1110 requires state and local government entities to meet WCAG conformance and provides for penalties of up to $3,500 per violation. Full implementation was extended to July 1, 2025 by HB24-1454, and enforcement began on that date.
• California Government Code § 11135 and § 7405 require state and certain local entities to provide accessible electronic and information technology. California's proposed AB 1757 (which would have mandated WCAG 2.1 AA and created a private right of action) died in committee in August 2024, but the underlying Government Code provisions remain in force.
• CCCCO Memo ESS 26-17 (February 27, 2026) directs all California community college districts to meet WCAG 2.1 AA for digital documents and explicitly identifies PDFs, Word files, Excel files, LMS content, SharePoint, email, HR portals, and social media as in scope. This is a Chancellor's Office directive, separate from any federal rule.

Additional states have introduced bills or adopted procurement requirements; this list is not exhaustive. Entities should consult counsel for state-specific obligations.

What entities should do now

The extension bought time, not a reprieve. The practical guidance for state and local entities is unchanged; three steps remain appropriate:

1. Inventory digital assets. A defensible compliance posture requires knowing what content the entity publishes: public-facing websites, mobile apps, portals, learning management systems, document libraries, and third-party-hosted content.
2. Triage by risk and use. Documents and pages that are frequently accessed, recently published, or carry legal weight (board minutes, agendas, forms, catalogs, financial reports) carry higher priority than archived or rarely accessed content.
3. Maintain a documented compliance plan. A documented plan demonstrates good-faith effort and reduces exposure to private litigation and OCR complaints under the underlying statute, independent of the federal rule’s timing.

Update history

• 2026-07-06. Updated to reflect the April 20, 2026 interim final rule, which extended both compliance deadlines by one year (to April 26, 2027 and April 26, 2028). Removed the earlier "OIRA submission pending / outcome unknown" framing now that the IFR has published.
• 2026-05-26. Page published. Reflected the February 13, 2026 OIRA submission; no IFR text was public as of that date.

This page is updated whenever there is a material development: rule publication, court decision, DOJ announcement, or state law change. Dated entries are appended so the page reflects what was known when.