The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received an Interim Final Rule from the Department of Justice on February 13, 2026. This move bypasses the traditional Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process, which would have required public comment before changing the ADA Title II web and mobile accessibility regulation. The deadline for state and local government entities with populations of 50,000 or more remains April 24, 2026, but the rule's content and timeline may change without stakeholder input.
What Changed
The Department of Justice initially indicated in September 2025 that it would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reconsider cost-related provisions in the April 24, 2024 Title II rule. That process would have allowed public comment. Instead, DOJ submitted revisions to OIRA as an Interim Final Rule. The revised content remains unpublished.
This is the first known use of the IFR process for accessibility regulations. This mechanism allows agencies to implement regulatory changes without the comment period required under standard rulemaking procedures.
On May 27, 2026, the National Federation of the Blind filed a lawsuit challenging the Interim Final Rule's delay of compliance deadlines. The legal complaint argues the extension represents an illegal use of the IFR process.
Key Findings
The IFR process eliminates transparency Assistive Technology a critical juncture. OIRA has not released the revised rule's content. Your legal team cannot review proposed changes, and your compliance roadmap operates under regulatory uncertainty. The DOJ's shift from NPRM to IFR removes the mechanism through which you would have submitted technical concerns about implementation timelines or conformance testing requirements.
Regulatory history contradicts the need for delay. DOJ has recognized since Assistive Technology least 2003 that ADA Title II requires accessible state and local government websites. The current rulemaking process began in 2010. Sixteen years of development preceded the 2024 final rule. The sudden pivot to an IFR suggesting the rule is "too costly" conflicts with this established timeline and the extensive record supporting WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance as achievable.
The underlying civil rights obligation remains unchanged. Courts have recognized ADA coverage of digital properties since 1996. If the IFR extends deadlines or weakens technical standards, your organization still faces nondiscrimination obligations under ADA Title II. A revised rule does not eliminate the statutory requirement to provide equal access to programs, services, and activities. Your risk profile under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and parallel state laws persists regardless of federal rule changes.
State-level requirements may exceed any revised federal standard. Multiple states enforce accessibility laws stricter than the DOJ Final Rule (2024). If the IFR weakens federal requirements, you still operate under the most stringent applicable standard. Your conformance testing program cannot scale back to a lower baseline without reviewing every jurisdiction where your entity operates.
The legal challenge creates additional compliance uncertainty. The May 27, 2026 lawsuit introduces the possibility that courts will invalidate the IFR. If you delay conformance work based on a revised rule, and that rule is later struck down, you will face compressed timelines to meet the original April 24, 2026 deadline retroactively. This litigation risk compounds the operational risk of pausing accessibility work.
What This Means for Your Team
Your general counsel should prepare for three scenarios: the rule remains unchanged, the IFR extends deadlines without altering technical standards, or the IFR modifies both timeline and conformance requirements. Each scenario requires different risk mitigation.
Do not halt accessibility work based on speculation about regulatory relief. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not pause. If your websites and mobile applications currently fail WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance, you operate outside compliance regardless of the IFR's content.
If your organization already meets WCAG 2.1 Level AA, document the business case for continued investment. Several sources report that state and local governments following the Title II rule have reduced accessibility costs through standardized procurement and consistent governance frameworks. Capture these outcomes now. If OIRA schedules meetings on the IFR, you will need quantified evidence that the rule works.
Your procurement team should not revise vendor accessibility requirements based on the IFR. Contracts referencing WCAG 2.1 Level AA remain enforceable. Weakening these terms exposes your organization to claims under Section 504, which applies to federal funding recipients independently of the Title II rule.
Action Items by Priority
Immediate (before any IFR publication): Inventory all state and local accessibility laws applicable to your entity. Confirm whether your compliance floor sits above the federal Title II rule. If state law mandates EN 301 549 conformance or WCAG 2.2, the IFR is irrelevant to your technical obligations. Update your governance documentation to reflect the controlling standard.
Within 30 days: Conduct a gap analysis against WCAG 2.1 Level AA for all public-facing web properties and mobile applications. Prioritize services related to voting, public meetings, libraries, and parks. These high-impact areas face heightened scrutiny regardless of regulatory changes. If your analysis reveals conformance gaps, initiate remediation. Do not wait for regulatory clarity.
Within 60 days: Review vendor contracts for accessibility conformance language. Verify that Accessibility Conformance Reports reference current WCAG versions and that service level agreements include remediation timelines. If contracts lack these provisions, begin renegotiation. The IFR does not eliminate your ability to enforce accessible procurement through contract terms.
Ongoing: Monitor the lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind. Court decisions on the IFR's validity will determine whether any revised deadlines survive legal challenge. If the IFR is invalidated, the original April 24, 2026 deadline may snap back into effect. Your legal team should track the docket and brief leadership on litigation developments monthly.
If the IFR extends deadlines: Do not interpret an extension as permission to deprioritize accessibility. Use additional time to expand conformance testing beyond minimum requirements. Implement screen reader testing protocols, establish accessible authentication workflows, and train content authors on WCAG principles. An extended deadline is an opportunity to exceed baseline conformance, not to defer it.
