ADA title II for courts

Court systems face significant challenges when litigants encounter inaccessible online portals for e-filing. That’s why the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II's digital accessibility rule states that e-filing and livestreams must be accessible as the 2026 and 2027 deadlines approach.

Judicial branches must also promptly update high-impact systems, including docketing, forms, calendars, and notices, and strengthen policy and governance to support ongoing compliance.

Key takeaways for courts

• Accessibility is essential to open courts and due process.
• Prioritize high-risk, high-volume areas such as e‑filing, docket search, calendars, payments, and self‑help resources.
• Address the paper trail by converting scanned orders and PDF packets to accessible formats and by captioning livestreams and recorded hearings.
• Engage vendors as extensions of the court.

• This includes requiring current Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) and Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs), mandating accessibility acceptance tests before launch, and including remediation Service Level Agreement (SLAs) in all contracts.
• Specify that vendors must promptly resolve critical barriers, provide clear documentation of fixes, and cooperate with independent accessibility testing.
• Contracts should also require vendors to maintain ongoing compliance during system updates and submit regular status reports.

• Publish a clear accessibility statement and accommodations request process. Log exceptions and provide equally effective alternatives.

What the 2024 ADA Title II rule requires (WCAG 2.1 AA)

Court websites and portals, e-filing systems, online payments, calendars, public notices, and mobile apps must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Public access terminals/kiosks are covered to the extent they provide the court’s web content or mobile apps to the public. Public documents and media (e.g., PDFs and streams) provided through the web or apps must also meet the rule’s requirements.

Third-party platforms are also in scope when the court provides or makes them available through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements—so manage vendors accordingly. Purely third-party posted content not covered by those arrangements may fall under an exception.

Exceptions are narrow as well. If you claim undue burden (or fundamental alteration), the head of the public entity (or designee) must make that decision after considering all available resources and must provide a written statement of the reasons. The court must still take other actions that do not create undue burden/fundamental alteration to ensure access to the maximum extent possible (for example, an accessible alternative method for completing the task).

Deadlines, milestones, and quarterly checkpoints

Compliance deadlines are April 24, 2026 for a public entity (other than a special district government) with a total population of 50,000 or more, and April 26, 2027 for a public entity with a total population of less than 50,000 or for a special district government.

This phased approach will provide clearer traction for project sponsors and help maintain steady progress. Courts should phase remediation by risk and volume, beginning immediately, so allocating specific tasks to quarters will reflect agile governance and minimize the risk of last-minute rushes.

90‑day plan (Court playbook)

Inventory (Weeks 1-2)

Catalog dockets, case detail pages, calendars, e‑filing flows (registration, upload, and payment), self‑help libraries, payment pages, jury portals, livestream and recording archives, and kiosks. Identify responsible owners, such as the administrative office, clerks, IT, and web teams.

To support efficient remediation and minimize delays, implement an ownership matrix in the form of an RACI table. This table should pair each asset with a single accountable role, clearly defining who is responsible for approvals, delivery, and consultation.

Triage (Weeks 2-3)

Select the top 200 pages and forms, along with critical steps for e‑filing and payments. Prioritize emergency orders and public notices. Invite two users with disabilities to validate this list before finalizing priorities. Real-world feedback at this stage often reshuffles assumptions and prevents costly midstream pivots.

Remediate (Weeks 3-8)

Update design-system components and templates, ensuring each element, such as buttons, modals, and PDF templates, is mapped to the specific WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria it satisfies. This traceability will streamline audits and clarify compliance requirements for future updates.

Convert scanned PDFs to accessible templates and implement a livestream captioning policy. Use real-time translation where feasible and provide rapid post-event captions for recordings. Address mobile focus order, labels, and hit targets.

Govern (Weeks 6-10)

Update policy to reference WCAG 2.1 AA, establish an accommodations request channel, and create an exception workflow with clear escalation paths.

Evidence (Weeks 8-12)

Implement dashboards, assign owners, and prepare auditor-ready packets for counsel or Department of Justice (DOJ) inquiries. To make the concept of an auditor-ready packet more tangible, include a mini-checklist of essential documents.

This checklist should consist of VPATs, independent test reports, accessibility requests and accommodation logs, documented exception workflows, and regular vendor status reports. Readying these artifacts anticipates potential questions from counsel and expedites internal buy-in.

Top 10 high‑risk digital assets for courts

Begin with assets that present the highest risk. These are most likely to trigger complaints, disrupt access to justice, or attract DOJ scrutiny:

• Docket search and case detail pages
• E‑filing portals (registration, upload, and payment)
• Court calendars and scheduling notices
• Self‑help form libraries (PDFs/packets)
• Administrative orders and public notices (often scanned)
• Remote hearing livestreams/recordings (captioning and transcripts)
• Online fine/fee payment systems
• Jury service portals and reminders
• Public access terminals/kiosks
• ADA/accommodations request pages and forms

Immediate audits and remediation are essential, so incorporate iterative user validation sessions specifically for high-risk assets by involving screen-reader users in regular usability testing. Also, establish a feedback loop from these sessions to continuously improve rather than merely implement a one-time fix.

Procurement and vendor management (Flow‑down obligations)

Court technology and content must conform to WCAG 2.1 AA. Vendors (CMS/e-filing/payments/streaming) must provide current ACR/VPATs, support independent accessibility testing, and address critical user journey barriers before any launch.

Contracts must specify that vendors address identified issues, maintain compliance during updates, provide documentation of all work, respond to accessibility reports within established timelines, and regularly report remediation progress.

Include accessibility acceptance criteria and severity-based SLAs for each contract and every system release or upgrade. Vendors must also provide accessible templates for orders/notices and enable automated PDF remediation for common forms.

Governance: Roles, policy, and measurement

Accessibility is sustained through effective governance. Clarify ownership, codify the standard (WCAG 2.1 AA), and measure outcomes so the chief justice or administrator can monitor risk and intervene as needed.

To help these key performance indicators (KPIs) remain visible to leadership, establish structured governance feedback loops. Consider implementing scheduled forums, such as monthly risk reviews or quarterly accessibility councils, to encourage continuous dialogue, prevent metrics from existing solely in dashboards, and promote proactive course-correction.

Each player in the court system has a distinct part to play. The state court administrator coordinates the big picture, the ADA coordinator provides accessibility, the web team manages the digital landscape, clerks keep the wheels turning, and vendor managers make sure outside partners deliver on their promises.

Together, they establish a single, clear standard rooted in WCAG 2.1 AA. Their policy includes well-documented processes for accommodations and exceptions and a trusted library of approved templates to guide every step.

KPIs (Report to the chief justice or administrator)

To measure the effectiveness of their accessibility efforts, the courts should adopt clear metrics and regular reporting. These KPIs keep leadership informed and support accountability at every level:

• Issues per page (A/AA) on portals and dockets
• Percent of priority PDFs passing automated checks
• Percent of livestreams/hearings with captions
• Percent of systems with current ACR/VPAT

How Siteimprove helps courts

Siteimprove lets you demonstrate progress, hold vendors accountable, meet Title II deadlines with confidence, and more:

• Monitoring and evidence: Utilize regular WCAG 2.1 AA scanning, trend reporting, ownership, and exportable audit trails.
• Policy and governance: Use automated rules and exception logs to check that fixes are enforceable, turning dispersed fixes into measurable, defensible progress. You can also centralize policies, track exceptions, and streamline approval processes.
• Executive reporting: Roll policy conformance into deadline readiness to create defensible evidence.
• Document remediation: Discover, prioritize, and remediate high‑volume PDFs/Office docs (with the proof of fix).
• Monitoring and evidence: Keep a single source of truth on document status to reduce the largest volume risk.
• Mobile app accessibility: Map iOS/Android guidance to WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria.
• Executive reporting: Address the common “apps gap” in leadership updates and provide a deadline readiness view for administrators and counsel, with exportable reports.

FAQ

Do we have to remediate archived case files?

Prioritize current cases and public-facing forms. Some archived web content and some preexisting conventional electronic documents may be excepted under the rule, but documents currently used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in services/programs/activities are not excepted. For other archived materials, offer remediation upon request and log responses for audit purposes.

How do we handle real‑time captioning?

Adopt a policy of using real-time captioning (e.g., CART) where feasible. Otherwise, publish rapid post-event captions or transcripts for recordings and track coverage as a KPI.

Which WCAG version should we implement?

Title II requires WCAG 2.1 AA. You may update templates and components to align with 2.2 where feasible, but base policy and acceptance testing on 2.1 AA for compliance.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Public entities should consult counsel to assess how ADA Title II requirements apply to their specific programs, services, and technology.