The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 has not been sufficient to protect disability rights. Although the ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability, institutions frequently fail to uphold these protections [1]. For instance, only 17 percent of polling locations adhered to accessibility standards in the 2016 elections [2]. Additionally, Arkansas’s prisons are currently entering a settlement regarding their failure to provide accommodations to inmates with disabilities [3]. Moreover, Amtrak’s website, physical infrastructure, and customer service often inconvenience riders with disabilities looking to travel, despite Amtrak receiving a lawsuit from the Justice Department in 2020 for poor accessibility standards [4]. It is imperative that we address these gaps as they limit the political, intellectual, and social participation of affected individuals. In other words, they undermine the equal opportunities that the law is supposed to guarantee for all. To respond to these challenges, we first must recognize the two primary drivers of noncompliance with the ADA: weak enforcement and operational friction. 

Why ADA Noncompliance Persists

Weak enforcement is one of the strongest factors that enable ADA violations. It endures due to two systemic constraints: lack of resources and hyperfocus on complaints. A 2000 report from the National Council on Disability (NCD) reports that between 1990 and 1999, state and federal agencies that were responsible for enforcing the ADA were largely underfunded and understaffed [5]. Although critics often argue that the government has spent more taxpayer dollars on disability justice over the past two decades, a follow-up report in 2018 reveals that these agencies are still under-resourced [6]. As a result, disability rights violations remain. For example, the Federal Railroad Administration hasta reported that they do not have ample resources to investigate all the ADA-related complaints that it receives [7].

Additionally, agencies often respond to ADA violations on a case-by-case basis through complaints instead of developing strategies to address systemic issues [8]. The very nature of a complaint-driven system is reactive. Individual reports bring problems to light, rather than proactive investigation. Consequently, the outcome is more piecemeal than comprehensive. For instance, in October 2024, the US Attorney’s Office reached a settlement agreement with the New Hartford Township to eliminate physical barriers at polling locations [9]. However, this is hardly a problem unique to New Hartford, Minnesota. Indeed, a nonprofit organization revealed that only 13 percent of the 294 polling locations in Metro Detroit were fully accessible in the 2024 election cycle [10]. Furthermore, 94 percent of polling places in New York were inaccessible to voters with disabilities in 2022 [11]. These recent abuses demonstrate how the federal government fails to enforce universal standards of accessibility, instead opting to play a game of legal ‘whack-a-mole’ that allows widespread noncompliance with the ADA to prevail. 

Operational friction also greatly contributes to ADA violations. Although ADA requirements are often stringent, various procedural and logistical barriers make it difficult for institutions to follow them. For example, election officials in New York report that they do not have the “support, resources, and clear direction” necessary to ensure accessibility for all voters due to fragmented collaboration between the state legislature and local boards of elections [12]. This highlights how unclear lines of responsibility within the government translate into negative outcomes for people with disabilities. Similar dynamics are present within the transportation sphere. In many metro stations, there are often gaps or misalignments between new and old platforms that make it challenging for wheelchair users to travel [13]. Professor Ron Buliung at the University of Toronto coined the term “last millimetre problem” to describe such gaps [14]. This issue depicts how a lack of coordination between multiple technical processes can produce accessibility violations, even when each component, that is each platform, may be compliant with the ADA on its own. If transportation agencies clearly assigned a single authority to maintain alignment between platforms, the incidence of such violations would likely decrease.

Solutions to Ensure ADA Compliance

To increase compliance with the ADA, authorities should pursue two strategies. First, the federal government should establish a Disability Oversight Committee within the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to develop proactive strategies that safeguard disability rights before violations occur. One such strategy can include conducting accessibility audits of polling places every four years so that officials can remediate identified barriers before voters arrive. Critics may contend that various agencies already have this responsibility, such as the Disability Rights Section (DRS) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, there are two problems with these alternatives. 

To begin, they are highly unlikely to receive adequate funding to implement such initiatives. Such agencies are subsets of larger agencies that are, in and of themselves, already underfunded [15]. Thus, these sub-agencies are often not able to dedicate enough resources to proactive strategies. It is for this reason that the National Council on Disability characterizes current enforcement of the ADA as “overly reactive” and “cautious” [16]. In addition, these agencies’ responsibilities are often much more multifaceted than the one I propose within the OCR. For example, the DRS is responsible for addressing ADA complaints, regulating and coordinating with state and local agencies, providing technical assistance, and overseeing a mediation program with the DOJ [17]. Given the breadth of these responsibilities, it is unsurprising that current agencies have yet to effectively enforce the ADA. A new agency that is solely focused on proactive ADA enforcement will be more capable of protecting the rights of people with disabilities. 

Secondly, the DOJ should require public agencies to design and implement targeted accessibility programs whenever the state identifies systemic issues within their operations. The DRS of the DOJ can verify implementation by obligating agencies to submit reports showing that the programs became operational within one year of a systemic issue being flagged. With a strong verification mechanism, institutions can then correct their own shortcomings effectively. For example, after noticing instances of the last millimetre problem, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) implemented a subway retrofit program to eliminate misalignments between platforms [18]. Within two years, they significantly reduced height differences between platforms across three stations [19]. Mandating public agencies to take initiative, just as the TTC did to eliminate barriers to accessibility, will be especially productive given the DOJ’s limited resources to implement such interventions on its own.

Without stronger enforcement and clearer operational processes, the ADA will never function as a living guarantee of full accessibility and inclusion. Public agencies will continue to sidestep the obligations that the law requires. Noncompliance will prevail. By combining proactive oversight with mandated institutional action, we can ensure that the ADA delivers on its promise of equal access and opportunity for people with disabilities.