In 1972, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided the case of Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hereafter PARC v. Pennsylvania. The court ruled that the state could not deny an individual's right to equal access to education based on an intellectual or developmental disability status. PARC brought the case against the state of Pennsylvania on behalf of fourteen families with intellectually disabled children who were unable to access to public schools based on their child’s disability. PARC challenged state laws that permitted schools to deny education to children who do not reach the mental age of five, or the average intelligence of people aged five, by the time they begin first grade. Both sides settled following the testimony of expert witnesses on PARC's behalf, and the US District Court approved the consent decree. PARC v. Pennsylvania was one of the first cases to establish that people born with an intellectual disability should have the same access to education as the rest of the population.

In Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that students with disabilities are entitled to an education, and that education cannot be denied based on the accommodations’ additional cost to the school. Mills was a class action lawsuit brought to the court on behalf of seven children denied public education by the District of Columbia School District because of their disabilities and the cost of accommodations the school would incur to educate them. US District Court Judge Joseph Cornelius Waddy presided over the case and ruled in favor of the students, finding that they were not given due process prior to expulsion from the school. Mills was one of the first cases in the US that guaranteed the right of students with any disability to a public education, regardless of the cost to the school system, and led to comprehensive federal legislation protecting disabled children's right to free public education.

In 1975, the United States Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the IDEA, which codified the right of all American children to a free and appropriate public education regardless of disability status. The IDEA requires all public schools that accept federal funds to provide education that meets the needs of students with disabilities at the public expense. Prior to IDEA, many students with disabilities went without any educational opportunities, and many faced confinement in institutions. The IDEA enshrined the right to education for children with disabilities, allowing millions of children to learn in a public-school classroom by setting guidelines for accessibility and the instruction of students with disabilities in American public schools.

Disabled people have historically lacked legal protection and often faced discrimination in healthcare, reproductive rights, education, and more despite being the largest minority group in the United States. One of the most common ways that American disability activists have advocated for their rights is by challenging discriminatory behavior or regulations in court and advocating for policy change in local, state, and federal governments. As a result, understanding the relationships between legislation and the judicial processes by which American judges approach disability discrimination is crucial to protecting and expanding the rights of disabled Americans. This study analyzes five American disability rights cases from the last fifty years as well as two foundational pieces of federal legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I conducted this research as a member of the Embryo Project, where I wrote and peer-reviewed articles for the Embryo Project Encyclopedia, which is an online open-access resource for topics relating to reproduction, embryology, and development. In my articles, I summarize the litigation and holdings of each case with additional contextualization in science and society. The passage of the ADA represents a watershed moment after which the American judiciary observed the rights of the disabled as legislatively codified rather than only subject to interpretations of the Constitution. Since laws can be repealed far more easily than constitutional amendments, precedent from legislative interpretation is only as secure as the law on which it is based. Lawmakers must understand the need to craft legislation with reduced textual ambiguity to prevent undermining the original intent of the law. With the recent overturning of long-standing precedent and the composition of the Supreme Court as of 2023, disability rights are on fragile footing. Judicial behavior in response to disability legislation has historically narrowed the protections offered by federal statute and failed to bolster disability rights by refusing to base decisions on Constitutional protections.