San Francisco is involved in a 20-year-old lawsuit about whether its parks, playgrounds, and public facilities are accessible. The case is called Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco. The case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
In its appeal, the City is making arguments that would weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) for disabled people. We are asking the City to withdraw those arguments and need your help.
What the Kirola Case is About
Ivana Kirola uses a wheelchair. She sued San Francisco in 2007 because city parks, sidewalks, pools, and libraries had barriers that shut out people with mobility disabilities. She sued on behalf of everyone in San Francisco in the same situation, approximately 21,000 people. She is not asking for money. She is asking the City to fix the access barriers.
The case has gone on for almost 20 years. There was a trial in 2011, and the case has now been to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three times.
Where Things Stand Today
In September 2025, the trial judge ordered the City to fix things citywide: to check and repair access problems at all newly built or remodeled parks and recreation facilities, and to put policies in place so new projects follow the access rules going forward. The City has appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit.
The City’s arguments on appeal are deeply concerning. The City argues that breaking the federal ADA access standards should no longer count as breaking the ADA itself, and that private individuals have no right to sue to enforce those standards at all. If the court agrees, people with disabilities across nine states could lose the ability to enforce access requirements in court.
The appeal has not yet been heard by the Ninth Circuit but will be soon.
What the City is Arguing – “the Harmful Arguments”
- Measurements should not matter. The City asks the court to ignore federal accessibility standards — for example, how wide a doorway must be or how steep a ramp can be. The City wants judges to decide feature by feature whether access is “meaningful” enough. This is a problem because the difference between access and exclusion is often a matter of inches. Federal accessibility standards set minimum levels of accessibility for disabled people. Ignoring the standards will result in less accessibility.
- Nobody can enforce the new-construction rules. The City says that no private person can go to court over facilities built or altered without complying with accessibility standards. This is a problem because private lawsuits are the main way accessibility standards are enforced. Without private lawsuits, there is no incentive for cities and counties like San Francisco to comply with the law.
- You must prove access violations were meant to exclude you. The City argues that claims about access barriers require proof that the discrimination was intentional. This is a problem because access barriers are often the result of thoughtlessness and people just not thinking about us. The law was specifically written to cover that kind of discrimination.
Why the Case Matters
In April 1977, more than 100 disabled people occupied the federal building at 50 UN Plaza in San Francisco for 25 days until the government signed the rules that made Section 504 real. The disability rights movement was born in San Francisco. Now, nearly fifty years later, San Francisco is telling a federal court the protections of decades-old disability rights laws don’t clearly apply to the parks it builds.
If the Ninth Circuit agrees with the City, it would weaken the ADA and Section 504 for disabled people in every state and territory it covers: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, and the territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It would affect millions of disabled people.
What We Are Asking the City to Do
On August 28, 2026, DREDF and more than 150 disability organizations, San Francisco residents, and allies sent a letter to San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu about the Kirola appeal. We asked the City Attorney to do the following things:
- Meet with disabled community members at an accessible time and place, before oral argument.
- Withdraw the harmful arguments from the Court.
- Commit publicly not to make the harmful arguments in the future.
- Direct the City Attorney’s Office not to raise the harmful arguments in future disability access litigation.
- Respond in writing by September 18, 2026.
The City has not yet responded.
What You Can Do Today
- Write the City Attorney. cityattorney@sfcityatty.org, or Office of the City Attorney, City Hall, Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102. A short and personal note works best. Explain how inaccessible spaces impact you in your life. A sample email is below. Change it to sound like you.
- Call your Supervisor and the Mayor’s Office. Ask them to tell the City Attorney to withdraw their harmful arguments that threaten the ADA and Section 504. You can use the sample email below as a call script. Find your supervisor here: https://sfplanninggis.org/sffind/ and get their contact information here: https://www.sf.gov/departments–board-supervisors.
- Write an organizational letter. If you are part of an organization, consider sending an organizational letter or statement to the City.
- Tell others and urge them to act. Post, write a letter to the editor, talk to reporters covering City Hall. The City is counting on nobody noticing what it is doing to harm the ADA. We need to speak out!
- Show up. Stay connected to DREDF. We will let you know about any public meeting the City agrees to hold. We will also let you know when the oral argument is scheduled for the Kirola case so you can consider attending. Having disabled San Franciscans and allies in the courtroom will be powerful!
Sample Email or Letter
Dear City Attorney Chiu,
I am a San Francisco resident. I am writing about the City’s briefing in Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco (No. 25-6844, 9th Cir.).
The City is asking the Ninth Circuit to set aside the federal accessibility standards, to rule that new construction requirements cannot be enforced in court, and to require proof of intentional discrimination. These arguments would weaken the ADA and Section 504 for disabled people across the entire circuit, not only here.
[One or two sentences about you. What do inaccessible parks, playgrounds, sidewalks, or buildings mean in your life or your family’s life?]
Please withdraw these arguments and commit publicly that the City will not raise them again.
[Your name, your neighborhood]
