Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Disability, Accessibility, and Civil Rights

The Coherence Gap: How Spending Clause Carveouts Undermine Cleburne's Premise and Expose Disability Doctrine to Constitutional Revisitation

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working paper. Not peer reviewed.

Written
September 2026
Version
v3
Pages
39
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

This Article identifies a doctrinal trap at the intersection of Equal Protection and Spending Clause civil rights for disabled people. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985), refused to recognize disability as a suspect or quasi suspect class for Fourteenth Amendment purposes on the ground that the political branches had supplied sufficient legislative protection through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and adjacent statutes. The 2012 ratification record for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, anchored four years earlier to the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, represents to an international body that domestic disability law meets or exceeds the strongest international human rights standard for disability protection. These two doctrinal commitments operate in unacknowledged tension with a third: the Spending Clause carveouts that limit Section 504's reach. The recipient beneficiary distinction in DOT v. Paralyzed Veterans, the tax expenditure exemption traceable to Regan v. Taxation With Representation, the procurement at market value exemption codified in federal civil rights regulations, and the contract reading remedy limit announced in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller together produce a legislative protection narrower than the political branches represented. The carveouts therefore produce a coherence gap. Either the legislative protection delivers what the political branches said it delivers, in which case the carveouts must be read narrowly and Section 504's reach restored, or the legislative protection does not deliver what was represented, in which case Cleburne's factual premise has collapsed and the heightened scrutiny question must be revisited. The Court cannot consistently maintain Cleburne plus the carveouts. Using Walmart as a documented case study of federally subsidized commercial activity that operates in the gap between legislative protection and Spending Clause reach, this Article maps the carveout architecture, presents the closed loop in formal terms, and proposes resolution through narrow reading of the carveouts together with targeted statutory and regulatory reform conditioning specific federal subsidies on Section 504 acceptance.

Keywords

  • disability law
  • equal protection
  • heightened scrutiny
  • Spending Clause
  • federal financial assistance
  • recipient-beneficiary distinction
  • tax expenditure
  • procurement exemption
  • legislative protection premise
  • ratification record
  • scope representation
  • special education

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Coherence Gap: How Spending Clause Carveouts Undermine Cleburne's Premise and Expose Disability Doctrine to Constitutional RevisitationOpen the 19-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Coherence Gap: How Spending Clause Carveouts Undermine Cleburne's Premise and Expose Disability Doctrine to Constitutional Revisitation." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Paper, September 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/the-coherence-gap/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (45)

  1. Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013).
  2. Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 591 U.S. 430 (2020).
  3. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).
  4. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
  5. Araiza, W. D. (2013). After the tiers: Windsor, congressional power to enforce equal protection, and the challenge of pointillist constitutionalism. Boston University Law Review, 94, 367.
  6. Araiza, W. D. (2012). Flunking the class of one/failing equal protection. William & Mary Law Review, 55, 435.
  7. Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002).
  8. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).
  9. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).
  10. Choper, J. H., & Ross, S. F. (2017). The political process, equal protection and substantive due process. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 19, 983.
  11. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985).
  12. Coolbaugh v. Louisiana, 136 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 1998).
  13. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022).
  14. Doe v. Salvation Army in the United States, 685 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2012).
  15. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998).
  16. Good Jobs First. (2004). Shopping for subsidies: How Walmart uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending growth. Good Jobs First.
  17. Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984).
  18. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).
  19. Heymann, J., Sprague, A., Stein, M. A., & Raub, A. (2021). A comparative overview of disability-related employment laws and policies in 193 countries. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 32, 22.
  20. Howard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 719 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1983).
  21. Iezzoni, L. I., Agaronnik, N. D., & El-Jawahri, A. (2022). Have almost fifty years of disability civil rights laws achieved equitable care? Health Affairs, 41, 1371.
  22. Konnoth, C. (2020). The normative bases of medical civil rights. Indiana Law Journal, 95, 275.
  23. Kushner, J. A. (1988). Substantive equal protection: The Rehnquist Court and the fourth tier of judicial review. Missouri Law Review, 53, 423.
  24. Melton, G. B., & Garrison, E. (1987). Fear, prejudice, and neglect: Discrimination against mentally disabled persons. American Psychologist, 42, 1007.
  25. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
  26. Numerator. (2024). SNAP Spending Analysis [as reported in Supermarket News, Oct. 22, 2024].
  27. Painter v. Horne Brothers, Inc., 710 F.2d 143 (4th Cir. 1983).
  28. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981).
  29. Pettinga, G. L. (1987). Rational basis with bite: Intermediate scrutiny by any other name. Indiana Law Journal, 62, 779.
  30. Pollvogt, S. (2013). United States v. Windsor and the crisis in equal protection jurisprudence. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 48, 599.
  31. Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983).
  32. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–796l.
  33. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006).
  34. Silvers, A., Wasserman, D., & Mahowald, M. B. (2025). Disability, equal protection, and the Supreme Court: Standing at the crossroads of progressive and retrogressive logic in constitutional classification. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform.
  35. Slobogin, C. (2003). What Atkins could mean for people with mental illness. New Mexico Law Review, 33, 293.
  36. Smith, J. B. (2005). The flaws of rational basis with bite: Why the Supreme Court should acknowledge its application of heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation. Fordham Law Review, 73, 2769.
  37. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
  38. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
  39. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
  40. United States Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U.S. 597 (1986).
  41. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. SNAP Retailer Management Year End Summary [Annual reports]. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailer/data
  42. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (n.d.). Title VI Legal Manual. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-vi-legal-manual
  43. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (various years). Work Opportunity Tax Credit statistics [Annual reports].
  44. Winebrenner v. Elizabeth Ives School for Special Children, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01261 (D. Conn. Aug. 1, 2025).
  45. Yoshino, K. (1998). Assimilationist bias in equal protection: The visibility presumption and the case of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Yale Law Journal, 108, 485.

All research