Federal Judge Rules D.C. Parole Agencies Violated Disability Law, Putting People at Risk of Jail

A federal judge has ruled that the agencies overseeing parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., violated federal disability law by failing to provide a meaningful system for accommodations, putting people with disabilities at risk of sanctions and incarceration when their conditions made it harder to follow supervision rules.

U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled September 25, 2026, that the U.S. Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, known as CSOSA, violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Government estimates cited by the judge showed that about 90% of people under CSOSA supervision had some indication of a disability.

Neither agency had a standard process for requesting, reviewing or providing reasonable accommodations, according to the ruling. CSOSA had no policy requiring officers to consider disabilities when setting supervision requirements, while an internal search found no guidance explaining how officers should handle them. Neither agency had a disability coordinator or formal grievance process.

Section 504 requires federal programs to give people with disabilities meaningful access to their services. In parole and supervised release, an accommodation can mean adjusting how a person reports, communicates with an officer or meets another supervision requirement when a disability interferes with compliance.

Those requirements carry legal consequences. Missing a meeting or violating another supervision condition can result in a technical violation, which involves breaking the rules of release rather than committing a new crime. A technical violation can still lead to arrest, detention, or revocation of release.

Kennedy Davis, the named plaintiff, is on lifetime parole and has chronic pain related to third-degree burns as well as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the court, his disabilities and medical needs made it more difficult to keep track of and attend required check-ins.

Davis once left a hospital against medical advice to attend a required meeting because he had no alternative arrangement. After later going 11 days without contacting his supervision officer, he was arrested and spent two months in jail before his revocation hearing, causing him to miss scheduled surgery. He received a 12-month sentence over the violation.

Other people in the case faced sanctions when medical conditions interfered with supervision. A man with memory problems after two strokes was jailed after failing to report on time. Another received a technical violation after failing to report while hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and spent a month in jail.

William Mathis, who originally brought the case with Davis before his death, had congestive heart failure and repeatedly faced conflicts between medical appointments and required check-ins. After he missed meetings, officers required him to wear a GPS ankle monitor even after he said his doctor warned that the device could dangerously restrict blood flow in his leg.

Mathis was later detained after missing another check-in and testing positive for marijuana. A hearing examiner recommended releasing him for scheduled heart surgery, but the Parole Commission rejected the recommendation. He remained in jail for about a week and missed the procedure.

McFadden found that the cases reflected systemic deficiencies in how the agencies addressed disabilities during parole and supervised release.

The government argued that officers sometimes provided accommodations informally and that people generally must request one before an agency is required to act. It cited telephone check-ins and referrals to mental health services as examples.

McFadden found those informal measures insufficient. He also rejected the government's reliance on the absence of formal accommodation requests because the agencies had failed to establish meaningful procedures through which people could make them.

The agencies began making changes after the lawsuit was filed, including work on notices informing people of their right to request accommodations. McFadden nevertheless found both agencies liable under the Rehabilitation Act.

Davis and Mathis filed the lawsuit in May 2024. McFadden later ordered accommodations for both men and, in February 2025, certified a broader class of people with disabilities who need accommodations while on parole or supervised release in the District.

The September 25 ruling granted partial summary judgment to the class and denied the government's competing motion. That resolves whether the agencies violated the Rehabilitation Act but leaves the remedy for the next stage of the case. Davis and the class are seeking an injunction requiring changes to how the agencies identify disabilities and provide accommodations during parole and supervised release.