THE NEURODIVERSITY JUSTICE ACT

Bridgette Hamstead

THE NEURODIVERSITY JUSTICE ACT

A Comprehensive Framework for Structural Liberation, Disability Justice, and Community Power

Prepared by:
Fish in a Tree: Center for Neurodiversity Education, Advocacy, and Activism
The Neurodiversity Coalition of America
In partnership with neurodivergent scholars, organizers, cultural workers, and community members across the United States

Version 1.0
2025

“Liberation is not the work of making people normal. Liberation is the work of making systems humane.”

THE NEURODIVERSITY JUSTICE ACT
A Comprehensive Legislative Framework for Structural Liberation, Community Power, and Disability Justice

Author’s Introduction
Bridgette Hamstead, MS

Preface: A Movement Narrative

**

Executive Summary

Congressional Findings

Global Policy Scan: International Precedents for Neurodiversity Justice

DEFINITIONS

TITLE I — Rights, Autonomy, and Bodily Sovereignty
Section 101. Abolition of Forced and Coercive Treatment
Section 102. Right to Communication Access
Section 103. Reproductive and Family Autonomy Protections

TITLE II — Ending Carceral and Coercive Systems
Section 201. Nationwide Ban on ABA and Coercive Behavioral Therapies
Section 202. Abolition of Police and Carceral Crisis Response
Section 203. Decriminalization of Disability and Survival

TITLE III — Education Without Harm
Section 301. Abolition of Seclusion, Restraint, and Behavioral Punishment
Section 302. Neurodivergent-Led Education Standards
Section 303. Decriminalization in Schools

TITLE IV — Economic and Labor Justice
Section 401. Abolition of Subminimum Wage
Section 402. Neurodivergent Worker Protection Act
Section 403. Guaranteed Disability Income

TITLE V — Healthcare Justice
Section 501. Neurodivergent Healthcare Non-Discrimination Standards
Section 502. Legal Right to Sensory Access
Section 503. Right to Communication, Sensory, and Emotional Support in Healthcare

TITLE VI — Housing, Community, and Anti-Institutionalization
Section 601. Abolition of Disability Institutions
Section 602. Community-Led Housing Infrastructure

TITLE VII — Leadership, Power, and Neurodivergent Governance
Section 701. Mandatory Neurodivergent Leadership in ND-Related Systems
Section 702. Legal Definition of Neurodivergent-Led Entities
Section 703. Governance Requirements for Research and Academic Institutions
Section 704. Enforcement of Governance Standards

TITLE VIII — Federal Investment in Neurodivergent Communities
Section 801. Neurodivergent Community Infrastructure Grant Program
Section 802. Eligible Entities
Section 803. Funding Allocation
Section 804. ND-Led Credentialing and Training
Section 805. Peer Support and Community Care Networks
Section 806. Community Accountability and Transparency
Section 807. Long-Term Sustainability and Federal Partnership

TITLE IX — Cultural, Research, and Civil Rights Transformation
Section 901. Ban on Surveillance-Based “Care”
Section 902. Neurodivergent Cultural Funding
Section 903. Disability Language Freedom Act
Section 904. Protections for Neurodivergent Participation in Public Life
Section 905. Research Ethics and Representation

TITLE X — Implementation and Oversight
Section 1001. Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission
Section 1002. Enforcement Mechanisms
Section 1003. Private Right of Action
Section 1004. State and Local Implementation
Section 1005. Public Accountability and Transparency
Section 1006. Implementation Timelines
Section 1007. Rulemaking Authority

Conclusion

AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION

By Bridgette Hamstead, MS

I did not write the Neurodiversity Justice Act to repair systems. I wrote it because neurodivergent people have spent our entire lives surviving systems that were built to control us, correct us, or contain us. The more I listened to autistic adults, ADHD adults, nonspeaking communicators, dyspraxic and dyslexic thinkers, psychiatric survivors, multiply marginalized disabled people, and late-diagnosed women who had burned themselves to the ground trying to be “good”—the clearer it became that we were not suffering because of who we are. We were suffering because of what has been done to us.

The data is devastating. Autistic life expectancy remains 16–30 years shorter than average, but the causes are structural: medical neglect, discrimination, poverty, and sensory-inaccessible environments—not autism itself. Disabled Americans experience poverty at nearly twice the national rate. Autistic adults face unemployment rates between 50 and 85 percent, not because we cannot work, but because workplaces punish our sensory reality and our communication. In schools, disabled children are only 13 percent of enrollment but more than 80 percent of restraint and seclusion cases. These numbers are not unfortunate accidents. They are the predictable outcomes of policies that decided long ago that neurodivergent minds needed to be fixed or controlled rather than supported and understood.

For decades, governments, service systems, schools, and medical institutions have tried to fit neurodivergent people into environments built for someone else. It has never worked—not because neurodivergent people failed, but because the model itself was violent. It demanded masking. It demanded compliance. It punished our sensory needs, our cognitive rhythms, our communication styles, and our ways of being in the world. It pathologized our difference and ignored our wisdom.

But while institutions built harm, neurodivergent communities built something else entirely. We built peer support networks, sensory sanctuaries, mutual aid systems, AAC communities, online cultures of solidarity, late-diagnosed circles where we disentangled shame from truth. We built a movement. And what we found—again and again—is that when neurodivergent people lead, outcomes improve. Not because we are exceptional, but because we understand the shape of the harm and the shape of the healing.

The Neurodiversity Justice Act emerges from that lineage: the lineage of disability justice, anti-carceral praxis, survivor movements, and the global neurodiversity movement. It was written for the child who was restrained for stimming. For the nonspeaking adult denied access to AAC. For the autistic teenager criminalized for meltdown behavior. For the ADHD woman who burned herself alive trying to meet neurotypical expectations. For the Black and Indigenous neurodivergent kids punished for the same behaviors that are tolerated in white peers. For the institutionalized adults who have never once been treated as the owners of their own lives.

This Act says: enough. It says the harm was never inevitable. It was policy. And policy can be undone.

The Neurodiversity Justice Act is the most comprehensive neurodiversity civil rights bill ever written. It abolishes ABA, seclusion, restraint, and coercive psychiatric treatment. It ends police involvement in disability-related crises. It establishes communication rights as fundamental civil rights. It mandates neurodivergent governance in all systems affecting our lives. It funds ND-led community care, housing, education, arts, research, and crisis response. It builds a world where sensory access is a default, not a favor. It creates guaranteed income so disabled and neurodivergent people are no longer trapped in poverty by design. It closes institutions. It ends the assumption that compliance equals safety.

Most importantly, it shifts the center of gravity from “accommodation culture”—where neurodivergent people beg for adjustments inside harmful systems—to neurodiversity justice, where neurodivergent people redesign those systems entirely.

This Act is not merely policy. It is a refusal. It is a reclamation. It is a blueprint. It is a promise to every neurodivergent person who has ever been punished for being themselves. It is the legislative articulation of a truth our communities have always known: our minds were never the problem.

What needs to change is the world.

And that is what this Act sets out to do.

PREFACE: A MOVEMENT NARRATIVE

For more than a century, neurodivergent people have lived inside systems that were never built for us. Schools demanded compliance from bodies overwhelmed by noise, light, and unpredictability. Workplaces rewarded endurance over wellbeing. Medical systems mistook our communication for defiance and our distress for disorder. Carceral systems were called to contain us, institutions were built to make us invisible, and “treatment” often meant coerced normalization.

These systems were not accidents. They arose from historical projects—eugenics, industrial conformity, mid-century pathology frameworks—that defined neurodivergent minds as defective and therefore manageable. They created an economy of compliance, a culture of cure, and a public narrative that framed neurodivergent people as burdens to families and the state. These narratives were wrong.

Today, research paints a different picture. Autistic life expectancy remains 16 to 30 years shorter than neurotypical peers—but the causes are overwhelmingly structural: inaccessible healthcare, poverty, chronic stress, discrimination, and preventable medical neglect (Hirvikoski et al., 2016; Mason et al., 2019; Mason et al., 2022). Disabled Americans experience poverty at nearly double the national rate (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Autistic adults face unemployment rates between 50 and 85 percent due not to ability, but to sensory-hostile workplaces and discrimination (Bury et al., 2021; Botha et al., 2022). In schools, disabled children represent 13 percent of enrollment and more than 80 percent of restraint cases (US DOE OCR, 2021). These are not individual tragedies—they are policy outcomes.

Despite this violence, neurodivergent communities have always survived through each other. Long before institutions acknowledged our existence, we developed our own ways of communicating, regulating, mourning, celebrating, and caring for one another. We built peer support networks, mutual aid infrastructures, sensory sanctuaries, online collectives, AAC-led cultures, and disability-justice movements grounded in the principle that our lives are not problems to solve but stories worth living.

Across these networks, a consistent truth emerged: neurodivergent survival is strongest when neurodivergent people lead. Research confirms what our communities have always known—that peer-led models improve outcomes, increase trust, reduce crisis intervention, and strengthen autonomy (Davidson et al., 2012). Studies show that sensory-informed environments reduce distress and healthcare usage, while coercive systems—BCBA-run programs, institutional settings, police-based crisis response—produce trauma, mistrust, and long-term harm (Kupferstein, 2018; O’Donoghue et al., 2019).

The United States has never built systems based on this evidence. Instead, it built systems based on fear of difference.

The Neurodiversity Justice Act emerges from a different tradition—the long lineage of disability justice, survivor movements, self-determination, abolitionist practice, community care, and neurodivergent epistemology. It refuses to tinker at the margins of systems that are producing structural harm. It insists that liberation requires redesign, not adjustment.

This Act is not simply a legal document. It is a statement that neurodivergent people have always been experts in our own lives. It recognizes that our sensory realities are not symptoms. Our communication differences are not deficits. Our bodies do not need correction. Our ways of thinking are not disorders. What needs changing are the systems that punish us for existing.

The Neurodiversity Justice Act shifts the center of gravity away from compliance and toward liberation. It dismantles institutions, bans coercive treatment, abolishes ABA, ends police involvement in disability-related crises, and redefines crisis as a moment for care rather than containment. It protects reproductive autonomy, communication rights, and bodily sovereignty. It funds ND-led community infrastructure, sensory-access housing, alternative crisis teams, and cultural work. It mandates neurodivergent governance in all systems that impact our lives. It transforms education, healthcare, labor, housing, transit, research, and public life.

Most importantly, it declares that nothing about us without us is not rhetorical—it is legislative.

This Act aligns federal law with what neurodivergent communities have been building for decades: worlds where support does not require compliance, where safety does not depend on suppression, and where care is relational rather than carceral. It calls on this nation to recognize neurodivergent people not as subjects to be managed, but as political, cultural, and economic agents whose leadership is necessary for collective liberation.

We have lived through an era shaped by punishment. The Neurodiversity Justice Act marks the beginning of an era shaped by belonging.

This is not a reform. It is a reimagining.

It is a blueprint for a country where neurodivergent people are not surviving despite the systems around them, but thriving because they helped build them.

It is an invitation to create a world that loves minds like ours.

GLOBAL POLICY SCAN: INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS FOR NEURODIVERSITY JUSTICE

The Neurodiversity Justice Act aligns with, and in many areas exceeds, international human rights standards already adopted by dozens of nations. Globally, there is growing recognition that neurodivergent people face structural barriers—poverty, discrimination, institutionalization, coercive psychiatric treatment, and early mortality—that are rooted in policy design rather than inherent vulnerability. Comparative international evidence underscores the need for national legislation grounded in autonomy, communication rights, and anti-carceral practice.

Below is a summary of global precedents across five domains most relevant to this Act:

1. Human Rights Frameworks

2. Deinstitutionalization

3. Restraint, Seclusion, and Coercive Treatment

4. Communication and AAC Access

5. Economic Justice and Disability Income Models

1. Human Rights and International Disability Law

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Adopted by 186 countries (UN Treaty Collection, 2024), the CRPD establishes global human rights standards for disabled people. The CRPD affirms:

• the right to legal capacity on an equal basis (Article 12)
• the right to liberty and security without disability-based detention (Article 14)
• freedom from torture, violence, and coercive practices (Articles 15–16)
• the right to live in the community with supports (Article 19)
• access to communication and AAC (Article 21)
• inclusive education without exclusion or segregation (Article 24)

CRPD General Comment No. 1 (2014) explicitly states that forced treatment, involuntary hospitalization, guardianship, and institutionalization constitute human rights violations.

Citation: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 1 (2014).
Evidence: Empirical analyses show CRPD-aligned countries see reduced institutionalization and increased community participation (Minkowitz, 2017).

The United States has signed but not ratified the CRPD. The Neurodiversity Justice Act would bring U.S. domestic law into closer alignment with global human rights standards.

2. Global Deinstitutionalization and Community Living Models

Across Europe and Latin America, countries have moved away from congregate settings toward community-led housing.

Scotland and Norway

Both countries implemented near-complete deinstitutionalization, replacing large facilities with community-based homes and individualized supports.

Outcomes:
• higher quality of life
• lower mortality
• reduced behavioral distress
• increased autonomy
(Cambridge et al., 2019; Tøssebro & Midjo, 2020)

Italy (Trieste Model)

Italy closed psychiatric hospitals beginning in 1978 (Law 180). The Trieste model is now globally recognized for community-based crisis response without police or coercion.

Evidence:
• restraint near zero
• lower hospitalization
• lower costs per capita
• higher autonomy and employment
(Mezzina, 2014)

Argentina and Peru

Recent laws ban new psychiatric institutions and mandate community-based alternatives.

3. International Restrictions on Restraint, Seclusion, and Coercive Psychiatric Practices

United Kingdom

The UK’s NICE guidelines ban prone restraint and strongly discourage all physical restraint except in immediate danger scenarios.

Evidence:
Restraint is linked to trauma, injury, and death (UK MIND, 2013).

New Zealand

Banned seclusion in youth units and significantly reduced restraint through trauma-informed, sensory-access redesign.

Evidence:
• 95% reduction in seclusion
• improved safety for staff and patients
(O’Hagan et al., 2008)

Germany & the Netherlands

Seclusion and restraint require immediate judicial review; some regions have banned seclusion entirely.

Australia

State-level bans on seclusion in schools, following investigations showing severe harm to autistic students.

Evidence:
Royal Commission reports link restraint/seclusion to trauma, regression, and educational exclusion (Australia Disability Royal Commission, 2023).

The Neurodiversity Justice Act exceeds many of these frameworks by combining anti-carceral bans with structural redesign and ND-led crisis teams—something no country has yet implemented nationally.

4. Communication Rights and AAC Access

Several nations recognize AAC as a civil right within healthcare and education.

Canada

Provincial laws (e.g., Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) mandate communication access across public services.

United Kingdom

The NHS “Right to Communication” guarantees AAC devices and communication partners for nonspeaking individuals.

Evidence:
AAC access improves autonomy, reduces crisis behaviors, and increases health equity (Ganz et al., 2012; Light & McNaughton, 2015).

Sweden & Denmark

National assistive technology programs ensure AAC devices are provided within weeks—not months—through universal healthcare.

The Neurodiversity Justice Act’s 48-hour AAC mandate is one of the strongest globally.

5. Disability Income, Anti-Poverty Policy, and Labor Protections

Nordic Countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland)

These nations provide non-means-tested disability income, universal healthcare, housing assistance, and labor protections.

Outcomes:
• significantly lower disability poverty rates
• reduced mortality disparities
• higher employment among autistic and ADHD adults
(Ellingsen & Arvidsson, 2021)

United Kingdom

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) provides disability support without regard to employment status—but assessments remain criticized for bias.

New Zealand

Disability Allowance supplements income without marriage penalties.

The Neurodiversity Justice Act surpasses all existing international models by combining guaranteed income, labor protections, and sensory-access mandates.

6. International Bans on ABA and Coercive Behavioral Interventions

While no country has banned ABA nationally, several precedents exist:

Canada

Autistic-led organizations and provincial experts have called for bans after evidence of harm.
Provinces such as Ontario have restricted some aversive practices.

Scotland

Government-commissioned review (2022) indicated ABA and PBS conflict with human rights frameworks.

France

Autistic adults successfully challenged ABA-based interventions as violating fundamental rights, leading to national criticism of behaviorism in care.

Evidence:
Autistic adults exposed to ABA show elevated PTSD symptoms (46% vs. 28%; Kupferstein, 2018).
Behavior suppression is associated with masking, mental health decline, suicidality, and burnout (Hull et al., 2017; Cassidy et al., 2018).

The Neurodiversity Justice Act is the first national framework in the world to fully prohibit ABA and extinction-based methods.

7. International Crisis Response and Anti-Carceral Models

Portugal

Following drug decriminalization, peer-led crisis services dramatically reduced incarceration, overdose, and emergency hospitalizations.

Italy (Trieste Model)

Crisis teams with zero police involvement demonstrate safer outcomes and lower cost—evidence the U.S. can replicate for ND-led teams.

Norway

Peer-staffed crisis centers and mobile teams respond to psychiatric distress without force or police.

Evidence:
Non-carceral crisis response reduces mortality, trauma, and involuntary hospitalization (Slade et al., 2014; Mezzina, 2014).

The Neurodiversity Justice Act integrates this evidence while centering neurodivergent leadership—an unprecedented national structure.

Summary: How the Neurodiversity Justice Act Fits Globally

Across housing, crisis response, communication rights, restraint bans, and disability income, the Neurodiversity Justice Act:

• draws from the strongest global precedents
• aligns with CRPD human rights standards
• exceeds existing international models by integrating ND leadership
• closes gaps left by global disability laws (e.g., failure to ban ABA)
• builds a uniquely comprehensive, liberation-based framework
• positions the U.S. as a global leader in neurodiversity rights

This Act is not an outlier. It is the federalization of best practices already demonstrated worldwide—strengthened by decades of neurodivergent scholarship, data, and lived expertise.

⸻

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Neurodiversity Justice Act establishes the first comprehensive federal civil rights framework designed by and for neurodivergent people. For the first time in United States history, this Act recognizes neurodivergence as an ordinary form of human biodiversity and identifies structural oppression—not neurology—as the source of harm. Built on disability justice, abolitionist ethics, and neurodivergent self-determination, the Act confronts the systems that have historically controlled, punished, pathologized, and institutionalized neurodivergent people. It creates a new federal mandate for autonomy, sensory safety, economic dignity, communication access, community leadership, and the right to exist without suppression.

Across the country, neurodivergent people face some of the most severe inequities documented in American public health and civil rights research. Autistic people experience a 16- to 30-year reduction in life expectancy, driven by inaccessible healthcare, diagnostic overshadowing, and chronic stress—not neurology itself. Disabled and neurodivergent Americans experience disproportionate poverty and unemployment, with autistic adults facing unemployment rates between 50 and 85 percent. Neurodivergent children are subjected to restraint, seclusion, suspension, and police involvement at exponentially higher rates. Involuntary psychiatric treatment, forced medication, and behavioral compliance systems such as ABA remain widespread, despite extensive evidence of trauma and long-term harm. Carceral crisis responses continue to result in injury and death; police violence disproportionately targets disabled and neurodivergent people.

None of these outcomes are inevitable. They are produced by systems designed without neurodivergent leadership and maintained by carceral logics of control, normalization, and compliance. The Neurodiversity Justice Act rejects these premises entirely.

The Act is organized into ten Titles, each addressing an area of structural inequality. Title I establishes bodily autonomy, communication rights, and protections against coerced treatment and reproductive injustice. Title II dismantles carceral responses to disability by banning ABA, coercive behavioral interventions, and police involvement in neurodivergent crises. Title III reforms the education system, eliminating seclusion and restraint and replacing punitive behavioral models with sensory-informed, neurodivergent-led approaches. Title IV addresses economic injustice through labor protections, abolition of subminimum wage, and a guaranteed disability income. Title V mandates ND-competent healthcare and sensory-accessible environments. Title VI accelerates deinstitutionalization and invests in ND-led housing solutions. Title VII requires neurodivergent leadership across agencies, institutions, and federally funded programs. Title VIII creates sustained federal investment in ND-led community infrastructure. Title IX provides cultural, research, and civil rights protections, including a ban on surveillance-based “care” and protection of disability language autonomy. Title X establishes a majority ND-led oversight commission with meaningful enforcement power.

This Act is not a minor reform or a marginal accommodation. It is a paradigm shift. It redefines accessibility as a structural obligation, not an individual request. It recognizes communication not as a privilege but as a civil right. It treats sensory access as a public health necessity, not a courtesy. It frames neurodivergent leadership not as representation but as governance. And it acknowledges that neurodivergent survival requires dismantling the systems that have historically harmed us.

Through statutory mandates, research-backed rationale, and a clear implementation architecture, the Neurodiversity Justice Act provides a blueprint for a future in which neurodivergent people can exist in safety, dignity, and community—without masking, without coercion, without punishment, and without apology.

⸻

LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

Congress finds the following:

Neurodivergence is an ordinary, expected, and essential expression of human biodiversity. Decades of genetic, developmental, and anthropological research demonstrate that traits associated with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourette’s, OCD, and other neurotypes are stable across cultures and generations, with population prevalence estimates between 15 and 20 percent (Fusar-Poli et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2022). These patterns affirm that neurological variation is not an anomaly to be fixed, but a fundamental dimension of human diversity.

Despite this, neurodivergent people experience some of the most severe inequities documented in public health research. Autistic people face a 16- to 30-year reduction in life expectancy, with causes rooted in structural barriers, unmet medical needs, discrimination, chronic stress, sensory-inaccessible environments, and poverty (Hirvikoski et al., 2016; Mason et al., 2022). ADHD is associated with increased mortality largely due to systemic factors including medical discrimination, delayed treatment, stigma, and poverty (Dalsgaard et al., 2015). These disparities reflect failures of systems—not inherent vulnerabilities.

Disabled and neurodivergent Americans experience poverty at nearly double the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Structural poverty is enforced through punitive disability income rules, asset limits, marriage penalties, and employment discrimination. Employment research shows that autistic adults experience unemployment rates between 50 and 85 percent, not because they are unable to work, but because workplaces are designed around neurotypical norms, sensory hazards, rigid productivity expectations, and discrimination (Bury et al., 2021; Botha et al., 2022).

Healthcare discrimination is a major driver of early mortality. Autistic adults experience barriers across every domain of care, including diagnostic overshadowing, inaccessible sensory environments, inadequate communication support, provider bias, and clinician unfamiliarity with neurodivergent presentation (Nicolaidis et al., 2015; Mason et al., 2019). These systemic failures result in delayed or absent treatment for chronic illness, contributing directly to avoidable deaths. Nonspeaking and intermittently speaking neurodivergent people frequently lack access to AAC, despite strong evidence that AAC increases autonomy, reduces distress, and improves outcomes.

Coercive psychiatric intervention remains widespread, including involuntary hospitalization, forced medication, physical restraint, and chemical restraint. These practices disproportionately target neurodivergent people and are consistently associated with trauma, reduced trust in providers, and worse long-term mental health outcomes (O’Donoghue et al., 2019). Coercion does not improve stability; it produces harm.

Behaviorist models such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) remain common despite extensive evidence of psychological trauma and long-term harm. Autistic adults exposed to ABA report significantly elevated rates of PTSD symptoms compared to non-exposed peers (Kupferstein, 2018). Behaviorist models seek to suppress neurodivergent communication, sensory expression, and natural developmental patterns, reinforcing compliance and masking rather than autonomy and self-advocacy.

Neurodivergent people disproportionately experience police violence, incarceration, and criminalization. National mortality studies reveal that up to two-thirds of people killed by police are disabled, including neurodivergent individuals (Perry & Carter-Long, 2016). Police involvement in disability-related crises dramatically increases risk of injury and death. Many neurodivergent behaviors—shutdowns, meltdowns, sensory avoidance, self-regulation—are misinterpreted as defiance or threat.

These patterns begin in childhood. Restraint and seclusion are used overwhelmingly on neurodivergent children. Although disabled students represent approximately 13 percent of public school enrollment, they account for 80 percent of physical restraint and 77 percent of seclusion cases (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2021). Black and Indigenous neurodivergent children are subjected to disproportionate punishment, policing, surveillance, and exclusionary discipline.

Institutions and congregate settings continue to expose disabled and neurodivergent people to elevated rates of abuse, neglect, and premature death. Institutional living is consistently associated with worse physical health, lower autonomy, and diminished quality of life compared with community-based and self-directed models (Kornbluh et al., 2021). Despite decades of evidence, institutional expansion persists under new names such as “behavioral treatment centers” and “developmental facilities.”

Neurodivergent adults are routinely excluded from leadership in organizations, systems, and policy bodies that govern their lives. Most autism, ADHD, disability, and mental health institutions are led by non-ND professionals. This maintains patterns of paternalism, perpetuates compliance-based systems, and sidelines the lived expertise that has proven essential in identifying harm and producing effective alternatives. Peer-led systems produce better health outcomes, greater autonomy, and stronger community trust (Davidson et al., 2012).

Surveillance-based “care” systems—including tracking devices, monitoring apps, cameras, biometric surveillance, and seclusion rooms—are often justified as protective but replicate carceral control and increase trauma (Haslam, 2019). These technologies disproportionately target neurodivergent children and adults and exacerbate institutional abuse.

Cultural erasure and misrepresentation remain significant barriers to neurodivergent liberation. Neurodivergent people are underrepresented in public scholarship, the arts, leadership roles, and media portrayal. Disability studies research shows that cultural representation increases community cohesion, reduces stigma, and strengthens identity formation (Kafer, 2013; Piepzna-Samarasinha, 2018). Investing in ND-led cultural expression is therefore a civil rights imperative.

Finally, neurodivergent communities have already developed evidence-based models that outperform traditional systems. Peer support, mutual aid networks, ND-led crisis response teams, community land trusts, sensory-informed education, and non-carceral care infrastructures consistently demonstrate higher safety, greater long-term stability, and improved mental and physical health outcomes. These models emerge from lived expertise and collective survival—not institutional power.

Congress therefore finds that the current legislative landscape fails to protect neurodivergent people’s civil rights, bodily autonomy, economic security, communication freedom, safety, and access to community life. Structural overhaul—not incremental reform—is required to secure the fundamental rights of neurodivergent people and to build systems where all minds can live without suppression.

⸻

PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE ACT

The purpose of the Neurodiversity Justice Act is to establish a comprehensive federal civil rights framework that recognizes, protects, and advances the inherent dignity, autonomy, and community power of neurodivergent people. This Act is designed to confront the structural, cultural, and institutional forces that have historically harmed autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, dyspraxic, Tourette, OCD, nonspeaking, and otherwise neurodivergent individuals. It moves the nation beyond compliance-based accessibility and toward a model rooted in collective liberation, disability justice, and neurodivergent self-determination.

The intent of the Act is to transform systems that have long relied on coercion, normalization, and surveillance. For more than a century, neurodivergent lives have been governed by institutional logics that prioritize conformity, productivity, and behavioral control over autonomy, sensory safety, and meaningful access to community life. Public education has been structured around compliance benchmarks that misinterpret neurodivergent development. Healthcare systems have forced treatment, denied communication supports, and ignored sensory needs, resulting in widespread misdiagnosis and early mortality. Labor laws have allowed discriminatory productivity standards, inaccessible workplaces, and legalized poverty through subminimum wage. Housing systems have segregated neurodivergent people into group homes and institutions that cause measurable harm. Crisis response systems have criminalized sensory distress and relied on policing rather than care. And disability service systems—dominated by non-neurodivergent professionals—have centered behaviorist interventions that suppress identity rather than support autonomy.

This Act rejects the premise that neurodivergent people must adapt to systems built around neurotypical norms. Instead, it affirms that systems must be redesigned under neurodivergent leadership to reflect the actual diversity of human minds, sensory profiles, communication styles, and developmental trajectories.

The intent of the Act is to:

• abolish coercive systems that punish or pathologize neurodivergent embodiment;
• protect bodily and reproductive autonomy;
• guarantee communication access, including AAC as a civil right;
• ensure sensory-accessible environments across healthcare, public transit, schools, and federal spaces;
• eliminate restraint, seclusion, and behavioral punishment;
• end carceral responses to disability, including policing and ABA;
• dismantle poverty traps created by discriminatory labor and income policies;
• guarantee material security through a disability income free from means-testing;
• accelerate deinstitutionalization and expand ND-led community living models;
• establish neurodivergent governance in systems funded to serve ND communities;
• invest in ND-led culture, research, and community infrastructure;
• protect neurodivergent language autonomy and identity rights;
• create meaningful enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.

The Act is intended not merely to expand access to existing systems, but to fundamentally restructure those systems through a lens of neurodiversity justice. It centers the belief that liberation is achieved when environments reflect the sensory, cognitive, cultural, and communicative diversity of the people who inhabit them. It affirms that neurodivergent people are not passive recipients of care but political agents, cultural leaders, and architects of our own futures. It signals a national commitment to ending the harm inflicted by behaviorist, carceral, and institutional models and building instead an infrastructure of safety, autonomy, and community-driven support.

This Act’s intent is to create a nation in which neurodivergent people do not have to mask, comply, or survive systems—because the systems themselves are designed around dignity, access, and belonging. The intent is nothing less than structural transformation.

⸻

DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of the Neurodiversity Justice Act, the following terms have the meanings given below. These definitions are intended to prevent misuse, protect neurodivergent autonomy, and ensure that federal agencies, states, institutions, and service providers cannot reinterpret or dilute the Act’s standards.

These definitions reflect neurodiversity-affirming science, disability justice principles, and the lived expertise of neurodivergent communities.

1. Neurodivergent

“Neurodivergent” means any individual whose cognitive, sensory, communicative, relational, developmental, attentional, or motor patterns fall outside dominant neurotypical norms. This includes, but is not limited to, autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, dyspraxic, Tourette, OCD, nonspeaking, apraxic, chronically dissociative, intellectually disabled, traumatized, or otherwise neurologically atypical individuals.

This term acknowledges neurodivergence as a natural and valued part of human biodiversity without implying deficit, disorder, or inferiority.

2. Neurodivergent-Led

“Neurodivergent-led” means that an organization, program, agency, committee, coalition, or decision-making body is governed by individuals who are themselves neurodivergent and who hold meaningful power and majority control over decisions.

A body is considered neurodivergent-led when:

• at least 51 percent of decision-making authority is held by neurodivergent individuals,
• neurodivergent members hold voting power equal to or greater than non-ND members, and
• neurodivergent leadership possesses real operational authority rather than advisory or symbolic roles.

Organizations may not identify as neurodivergent-led if they use ABA, coercive practices, surveillance-based care, or control-oriented interventions.

3. Coercive Practice

“Coercive practice” means any intervention, treatment, educational method, crisis response, program, or institutional policy that seeks to control, suppress, modify, eliminate, or punish neurodivergent behaviors, sensory expressions, communication methods, or developmental patterns. This includes physical or chemical restraint, seclusion, forced medication, involuntary hospitalization, ABA, extinction procedures, token economies, planned ignoring, aversives, shock devices, or any strategy designed to induce compliance.

Coercion is defined by its impact, not its stated intention.

4. Restraint

“Restraint” means any action, device, pharmacological intervention, or environmental manipulation used to restrict an individual’s movement, prevent communication, or control bodily autonomy, including:

• physical restraint,
• mechanical restraint,
• chemical restraint,
• prone restraint,
• supine restraint,
• escort holds used to immobilize,
• “stabilization” techniques that involve restricting movement.

Therapeutic framing does not exempt an action from being classified as restraint.

5. Seclusion

“Seclusion” means the involuntary placement of an individual alone in a room, space, or environment from which they are prevented from leaving, regardless of the duration or the terminology used by the facility (e.g., “calm down room,” “cool down space,” “quiet room,” “therapeutic setting”).

If the individual cannot freely exit, it is seclusion.

6. Surveillance-Based Care

“Surveillance-based care” means any disciplinary, therapeutic, or supervisory practice that employs tracking, monitoring, data collection, or continuous observation for the purpose of controlling behavior or enforcing compliance. This includes wearable tracking devices, GPS-based “wandering registries,” hidden cameras, behavioral monitoring apps, biometric data collection, restraint chairs, “smart” seclusion technology, and algorithmic behavior scoring.

Any technology used to monitor neurodivergent people without meaningful consent is considered surveillance.

7. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)

“AAC” means any communication system or method—digital, low-tech, high-tech, assisted, or unaided—that supports or replaces natural speech. This includes tablets, text-based systems, letterboards, symbol boards, communication apps, speech-generating devices, typing, writing, or any other method an individual uses to communicate.

AAC is not optional, remedial, or a last resort. It is a civil right.

8. Sensory Access

“Sensory access” means the ability of an individual to exist in an environment without experiencing physical, cognitive, or autonomic harm due to sensory overload, sensory deprivation, or environmental hazards. Sensory access includes modifications to lighting, sound, seating, movement space, air quality, chemical exposure, visual complexity, and environmental predictability.

Sensory access is a structural obligation, not an accommodation request.

9. Sensory-Informed Design

“Sensory-informed design” means architecture, infrastructure, policy, and environmental planning that anticipates and supports a wide range of sensory needs. This includes quiet rooms, low-lighting options, noise reduction, scent-free policies, visual wayfinding, outdoor space access, and predictable, low-demand layouts.

Sensory-informed design is not restricted to disability-specific spaces; it must exist across all federally funded buildings and programs.

10. Institution

“Institution” means any residential, educational, medical, or treatment setting—regardless of size—where disabled or neurodivergent people are segregated from the broader community and subjected to staff-controlled schedules, limited autonomy, restricted movement, surveillance, or coercive practices.

Institutions are defined by function, not by name.
A 300-person hospital and a 6-bed group home can both be institutions under this definition if they restrict self-determination.

11. Community-Based, Non-Carceral Support

“Community-based, non-carceral support” means services or programs that operate outside police, punishment, institutionalization, surveillance, or behavioral control. These include peer-led crisis teams, mutual aid networks, ND-led therapeutic supports, sensory-access centers, and housing cooperatives grounded in autonomy and relational care.

This term distinguishes liberation-based community models from traditional service systems rooted in institutional power.

12. Crisis Response

“Crisis response” means any intervention deployed during moments of distress, overwhelm, sensory overload, shutdown, meltdown, dissociation, panic, or emotional or cognitive dysregulation. Crisis response must be non-carceral, non-coercive, and led by trained neurodivergent professionals or peers.

Crisis is not criminal behavior and must never be treated as such.

13. Functional or Developmental Difference

“Functional or developmental difference” refers to any variation in communication, cognition, sensory regulation, motor patterns, emotional processing, learning style, or executive functioning that diverges from neurotypical norms and does not inherently require correction.

This term centers the neutrality of difference and rejects deficit-based framing.

14. ND-Competent Care

“ND-competent care” means healthcare, therapeutic practice, or support systems grounded in sensory-informed, trauma-informed, communication-affirming, neurodiversity-aligned knowledge. ND-competent care rejects compliance frameworks, forced eye contact, normalizing interventions, and behaviorist models.

Care must be designed with the nervous system, not against it.

15. Civil Rights Harm

“Civil rights harm” means any practice or policy that results in the denial of autonomy, communication, access, safety, bodily integrity, or participation in community life due to neurodivergence. This includes discrimination, coercion, forced treatment, surveillance, restraint, seclusion, exclusionary discipline, wage exploitation, institutionalization, and environmental inaccessibility.

This Act treats civil rights harm as actionable and enforceable.

FULL LEGISLATIVE TEXT OF THE NEURODIVERSITY JUSTICE ACT

TITLE I — RIGHTS, AUTONOMY, AND BODILY SOVEREIGNTY

Section 101. Abolition of Forced and Coercive Treatment

(a) Prohibition on Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment.
No individual shall be subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, hospitalization, medication, or restraint for conduct that does not constitute a criminal act. All psychiatric interventions shall require meaningful, ongoing, and revocable informed consent.

(b) Ban on Chemical and Physical Restraint.
Chemical restraint, physical restraint, mechanical restraint, prone restraint, supine restraint, escort holds used to immobilize, and any intervention restricting movement or bodily autonomy are hereby prohibited in all public and private facilities, including hospitals, crisis units, schools, transportation settings, and disability service programs.

(c) Prohibition on Court-Mandated Compliance.
Courts shall not mandate psychiatric compliance, medication, or treatment plans as a condition of release, diversion, guardianship, or any other legal status except in cases involving clear, imminent threat of harm as defined by strict scrutiny standards.

(d) Informed Consent Standards.
Informed consent shall require:
(1) clear, accessible communication in modalities chosen by the individual;
(2) explanation of risks, benefits, alternatives, and the right to withdraw;
(3) availability of AAC for any individual needing communication support;
(4) the presence of a trained advocate upon request.

(e) Public Reporting Requirements.
All public and private facilities receiving federal funds shall report quarterly data on any use of seclusion, restraint, forced medication, involuntary hospitalization, or coercive practice. Reports shall be publicly accessible through the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

(f) Private Right of Action.
Any individual subjected to coercive treatment in violation of this section shall have the right to bring civil action for damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.

Section 102. Right to Communication Access

(a) Guarantee of AAC Access.
All public systems—including educational institutions, medical settings, courts, emergency services, law enforcement agencies, and federally funded programs—shall provide timely and unrestricted access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for any individual who requests or requires such support.

(b) Timeliness Requirement.
AAC shall be provided within 48 hours of request or documented need, with no eligibility restrictions, prerequisites, or “readiness” determinations permitted.

(c) Non-Discrimination.
No individual shall be denied services, medical care, legal rights, or participation in public programs on the basis of using AAC or choosing not to use speech.

(d) Training Requirements.
All federally funded entities shall provide mandatory training in AAC support, communication access, and neurodivergent communication norms for staff interacting with the public.

(e) Civil Enforcement.
Failure to provide AAC constitutes discrimination under this Act and shall be subject to all remedies, penalties, and oversight mechanisms established herein.

Section 103. Reproductive and Family Autonomy Protections

(a) Prohibition of Sterilization and Contraception Coercion.
No sterilization, contraception plan, long-acting reversible contraceptive placement, or reproductive medical intervention shall be performed on any individual on the basis of disability status or psychiatric diagnosis without their informed, voluntary, and revocable consent.

(b) Protection Against Disability-Based Child Removal.
State agencies, child welfare systems, and family courts shall not remove a child from parental custody or deny reunification solely on the basis of:
(1) disability labels;
(2) IQ scores;
(3) psychiatric diagnoses;
(4) communication differences;
(5) use of AAC;
(6) sensory, motor, or developmental patterns typical of neurodivergent presentation.

(c) Requirement for Disability-Competent Parenting Supports.
States shall provide neurodivergent-competent parenting resources, including communication support, sensory-accessible parenting education, in-home assistance, and peer-led guidance when requested. Lack of support services shall not be grounds for child removal.

(d) Ban on Guardian-Coerced Reproductive Decisions.
Guardians, conservators, and state-appointed decision-makers shall not impose, coerce, or direct reproductive decisions on behalf of neurodivergent individuals. Courts shall treat such coercion as a civil rights violation.

(e) Right to Legal Advocacy.
All neurodivergent parents involved in child welfare or family court proceedings shall have access to an advocate trained in disability justice, neurodiversity-affirming practice, and communication access.

TITLE II — ENDING CARCERAL & COERCIVE SYSTEMS

Section 201. Nationwide Ban on ABA and All Coercive Behavioral Therapies

(a) Prohibition of ABA and Behaviorist Interventions.
No public or private entity, program, clinic, provider, school, early intervention service, or federally funded organization shall provide, recommend, mandate, or receive reimbursement for Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) or any coercive behavioral intervention targeting neurodivergent individuals.

(b) Prohibited Practices.
The following practices are expressly banned:
(1) discrete trial training;
(2) extinction or escape extinction;
(3) planned ignoring;
(4) token economies;
(5) compliance training;
(6) aversive conditioning;
(7) electric shock devices;
(8) forced eye contact;
(9) any technique intended to suppress stimming, sensory regulation, or communication;
(10) restraint-based behavior plans;
(11) any intervention in which compliance is the primary measure of success.

(c) End of Medicaid and Insurance Reimbursement.
No federal or state Medicaid funds, private insurance, or public insurance program shall reimburse, subsidize, or license ABA or coercive behavioral interventions.

(d) Penalties for Violation.
Entities violating this section shall be subject to civil penalties, loss of federal funding, revocation of licensure, and public listing by the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

(e) Reallocation of Funding.
All funds previously designated for ABA services shall be redirected to:
(1) neurodivergent-led occupational therapy and sensory support services;
(2) speech and communication support with AAC as a central modality;
(3) peer-led support networks;
(4) trauma-informed, ND-competent clinical services;
(5) community-based care programs designed under ND leadership.

(f) Employment Transition Support.
Behavioral therapists shall be provided federally funded pathways to transition into non-coercive, sensory-informed, ND-affirming roles through ND-led certification programs.

Section 202. Abolition of Police and Carceral Crisis Response

(a) Prohibition on Police Response to Disability or Neurodivergent Crises.
Law enforcement officers shall not respond to crises involving neurodivergent, disabled, or psychiatrized individuals when the events arise from distress, sensory overload, communication differences, shutdowns, meltdowns, or related non-criminal behaviors.

(b) Establishment of Neurodivergent-Led Mobile Crisis Teams.
States shall create community-based, non-carceral crisis response teams that are:
(1) majority neurodivergent-led;
(2) trained in sensory regulation, somatic support, trauma-informed approaches, and AAC;
(3) available 24/7 statewide;
(4) empowered to provide care without involvement of law enforcement.

(c) Funding Requirements.
Federal grants shall be allocated to support the creation, staffing, training, and operation of such crisis teams. Funding shall prioritize ND-led organizations and peer-run models.

(d) Ban on “Wandering Registries.”
Registries, databases, GPS trackers, surveillance systems, or monitoring programs that identify, track, or catalog neurodivergent individuals based on perceived risk of “wandering,” elopement, or behavioral unpredictability are prohibited.

(e) Emergency Dispatch Reform.
All 911 and crisis dispatch systems shall implement protocols that:
(1) divert neurodivergent-related calls away from law enforcement;
(2) prioritize ND-led crisis responders;
(3) ensure dispatchers are trained in recognizing sensory and communication distress.

(f) Civil and Criminal Penalties.
Any agency that deploys law enforcement in violation of this section shall be subject to federal penalties, loss of public funding, and civil liability.

Section 203. Decriminalization of Disability and Survival

(a) Prohibition on Criminalizing Neurodivergent Behaviors.
No individual shall be arrested, charged, detained, prosecuted, or otherwise criminalized for behaviors arising from neurodivergence, including but not limited to:
(1) stimming;
(2) shutdowns or meltdowns;
(3) sensory avoidance or flight;
(4) echolalia, scripting, pacing, repetitive movements;
(5) dissociation or freezing;
(6) atypical communication patterns;
(7) overwhelm-related behavior;
(8) non-violent distress responses.

(b) Educational and Workplace Protections.
Schools, employers, hospitals, and public accommodations shall not impose punitive measures—including suspension, expulsion, firing, police referral, restraint, isolation, or surveillance—on the basis of disability-related behaviors.

(c) Mandatory Reclassification of Incidents.
Incidents involving neurodivergent behaviors shall be reclassified as accessibility failures, crisis moments, or sensory distress—not disciplinary or criminal offenses.

(d) Reparative Pathways.
Any individual criminalized prior to enactment of this section for disability-related behaviors shall have the right to:
(1) expungement of charges;
(2) sealing of records;
(3) state-funded legal support;
(4) potential compensation through civil mechanisms established by the Oversight Commission.

(e) State Compliance Requirements.
States shall amend criminal codes, education laws, and civil statutes to align with the provisions of this section within 24 months of enactment. Failure to do so shall result in reduction of federal funding.

(f) ADA Expansion.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is hereby expanded to explicitly include sensory, emotional, cognitive, communication, and developmental regulation as protected domains.

TITLE III — EDUCATION WITHOUT HARM

Section 301. Abolition of Seclusion, Restraint, and Behavioral Punishment in Schools

(a) Nationwide Prohibition.
No public or private educational institution receiving federal funds, including early intervention programs, K–12 schools, charter schools, residential schools, therapeutic schools, or postsecondary institutions, shall use seclusion, restraint, isolation rooms, mechanical restraints, chemical restraints, aversive conditioning, or any form of behavioral punishment against any student, regardless of disability status.

(b) Ban on Seclusion Rooms.
All seclusion rooms, isolation rooms, “calm down rooms,” “quiet rooms,” or any enclosed space in which a student is placed alone and prevented from leaving, are hereby prohibited. These spaces shall be permanently closed, repurposed, or demolished within twelve months of enactment.

(c) Prohibition on Physical Restraint.
Physical restraint—including prone, supine, mechanical, escort holds, or any technique restricting movement—is banned except in extremely limited circumstances when there is an immediate, life-threatening physical risk to the student or others, and no other option exists. Restraint may never be used for compliance, behavior management, emotional regulation, disruption, or sensory distress.

(d) Sensory Distress Does Not Constitute Danger.
A meltdown, shutdown, panic response, sensory overload, or distress behavior shall not be interpreted as aggression or as grounds for restraint or removal.

(e) Civil Liability.
Any use of seclusion or restraint in violation of this section shall create a private right of action, enabling the student or their family to pursue damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief.

(f) Federal Funding Enforcement.
Any school found in violation shall lose eligibility for federal education funds until they demonstrate full compliance and undergo training under neurodivergent-led programs approved by the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

Section 302. Neurodivergent-Led Education Standards

(a) Structural Shift Away From Compliance Models.
Educational systems shall replace behaviorist, compliance-based frameworks—including point systems, token economies, clip charts, forced eye contact, punitive reward structures, or any model that seeks to normalize or suppress neurodivergent traits—with sensory-informed, developmental, trauma-informed, and relational models developed under neurodivergent leadership.

(b) Universal Sensory Access.
Classrooms, cafeterias, hallways, libraries, gym spaces, and extracurricular environments shall be designed or retrofitted to support sensory access. This includes, but is not limited to, quiet rooms (voluntary use only), low-lighting options, seating flexibility, sensory tools, noise reduction strategies, scent-free policies, and clear visual wayfinding.

(c) Curriculum Reform.
Teacher preparation programs, licensure systems, and continuing education requirements shall incorporate curricula developed by neurodivergent educators and researchers, covering neurodiversity-affirming pedagogy, sensory science, trauma-informed practice, AAC, executive functioning support, and disability justice.

(d) Neurodivergent Leadership Requirements.
Federal education funds shall be contingent upon the inclusion of neurodivergent individuals in:
(1) state and district-level curriculum committees;
(2) teacher training program boards;
(3) special education policy councils;
(4) school accessibility planning teams;
(5) oversight and evaluation committees.

(e) AAC and Communication Access.
Schools must provide AAC without delay to any student who requires it, and may not require speech attempts as a precondition for AAC use.

(f) Ban on Developmental Compliance Benchmarks.
Any benchmark requiring eye contact, behavioral conformity, reduced stimming, normalized posture, or suppression of neurodivergent communication shall be removed from special education evaluations, IEP goals, and general classroom expectations.

Section 303. Decriminalization in Schools

(a) Removal of Police From Schools.
School resource officers (SROs), law enforcement personnel, armed security guards, and surveillance-based safety protocols shall be eliminated from public schools within twenty-four months of enactment. Federal funds may not be used for their hiring, training, or deployment.

(b) Ban on Surveillance Technologies.
Surveillance devices—including cameras in classrooms, biometric scanners, behavior-monitoring apps, wearable trackers, seclusion alarms, or any technology intended to track or rank student behavior—are prohibited.

(c) Replacement with ND-Led Care Teams.
Schools shall establish neurodivergent-led care teams responsible for crisis support, sensory regulation, conflict facilitation, and community-building. These teams shall include neurodivergent clinicians, educators, peer mentors, and sensory specialists.

(d) Prohibition on Criminalization of Distress Behaviors.
Students shall not be suspended, expelled, disciplined, removed, restrained, or referred to law enforcement for behaviors arising from neurodivergence, trauma, communication differences, or sensory distress.

(e) Redefinition of “Behavioral Incidents.”
Any incident involving a neurodivergent student’s distress shall be classified as an accessibility or support need, not disciplinary misconduct.

(f) Restorative and Relational Practices.
Schools shall implement relational, restorative, and harm-reduction frameworks developed under neurodivergent leadership. Restorative practices must never be used as disguised compliance or punishment.

(g) Training Requirements.
All school personnel, including administrators, teachers, aides, transportation staff, cafeteria workers, and extracurricular supervisors, shall receive mandatory training in neurodiversity-affirming practice, sensory regulation, AAC, trauma-informed approaches, and de-escalation without force.

TITLE IV — ECONOMIC AND LABOR JUSTICE

Section 401. Abolition of Subminimum Wage

(a) Ending Section 14(c).
Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which permits employers to pay disabled and neurodivergent workers less than the federal minimum wage, is hereby repealed in full. No employer, agency, sheltered workshop, or program shall pay any worker less than the prevailing minimum wage on the basis of disability, neurodivergence, or perceived productivity.

(b) Prohibition on Sheltered Workshops.
The operation of sheltered workshops, facility-based work programs, or segregated employment settings designed exclusively for disabled or neurodivergent individuals is prohibited. All such facilities shall transition to integrated, community-based, and worker-directed models within twenty-four months of enactment.

(c) Worker Transition Protections.
Workers currently employed in sheltered workshops or subminimum wage settings shall be guaranteed:
(1) immediate wage increases to at least the federal minimum wage;
(2) federally funded access to training, coaching, and workplace supports designed under neurodivergent leadership;
(3) the right to transition voluntarily to community employment without penalty;
(4) continued Medicaid or disability benefits without interruption during transition.

(d) Funding for Community-Owned Employment.
The Department of Labor shall create a grant program to support the development of neurodivergent-led cooperatives, community-owned enterprises, and worker-owned businesses to ensure economic self-determination.

(e) Civil Enforcement.
Employers violating this section shall be subject to fines, restitution, and loss of federal contracts and funding.

Section 402. Neurodivergent Worker Protection Act

(a) Expansion of ADA Protections.
The Americans with Disabilities Act shall be expanded to explicitly recognize executive functioning, sensory regulation, communication, time orientation, processing speed, and atypical motor or relational patterns as protected domains requiring accommodation and structural support.

(b) Right to Sensory Access at Work.
Employers shall provide sensory-accessible environments including—but not limited to—noise control, low-lighting options, scent-free policies, flexible seating, movement breaks, and environmental predictability. Sensory access is a civil rights requirement, not a discretionary accommodation.

(c) Flexible Scheduling and Time Autonomy.
Employers shall offer flexible scheduling, asynchronous work structures, modified deadlines, or alternate hours upon request unless doing so would impose a clearly demonstrable undue hardship. Neurodivergent ways of experiencing time and focus must be recognized as legitimate labor patterns.

(d) Default Approval for Remote Work.
Where job duties can be performed remotely, employers shall approve remote work for neurodivergent workers upon request. Denial requires written justification demonstrating that remote work is functionally impossible, not simply disfavored.

(e) Ban on Productivity Quotas That Disproportionately Harm ND Workers.
Any employer using algorithmic monitoring, rigid productivity metrics, behavioral scoring systems, or surveillance-based performance tools that disproportionately harm neurodivergent workers shall be in violation of this Act.

(f) Protection Against Masking Pressure.
Employers shall not require or pressure workers to suppress stimming, adjust natural communication patterns, engage in forced eye contact, conform to neurotypical social norms, or mask their neurodivergence in order to be considered “professional,” “cooperative,” or “a good fit.”

(g) Anti-Retaliation Clause.
It is unlawful to retaliate against any worker for requesting sensory, communication, executive functioning, or relational supports. Retaliation includes demotion, reassignment, negative performance evaluations, increased scrutiny, or termination.

(h) Employment Discrimination Enforcement.
Neurodivergent workers subjected to discrimination in violation of this section may file civil action and shall be entitled to compensatory damages, attorney fees, reinstatement, and injunctive relief.

Section 403. Guaranteed Disability Income

(a) Establishment of an Unconditional Disability Income Program.
A federal guaranteed disability income program is hereby created, providing unconditional, monthly, non-means-tested cash payments to all disabled and neurodivergent individuals who request enrollment. Eligibility shall not require demonstration of deficit, impairment, or inability to work.

(b) Elimination of Asset Limits and Marriage Penalties.
All federal and state disability programs, including SSI and Medicaid, shall eliminate asset limits, marriage penalties, savings caps, and punitive eligibility rules. Individuals shall not lose benefits due to marriage, cohabitation, mutual aid participation, or savings.

(c) Work Without Penalty.
Recipients may work, volunteer, or pursue education without reduction or loss of disability income. Employment shall not be interpreted as evidence of nondisability.

(d) Automatic Enrollment Option.
Individuals currently receiving SSI, SSDI, Medicaid waivers, or other disability benefits shall be automatically eligible without additional application burdens.

(e) Indexing to Cost of Living.
Benefits shall be adjusted annually based on regional cost-of-living indices to ensure stable, adequate support.

(f) Protections Against Institutional Recapture.
No institution, group home, program, guardian, or payee shall control, confiscate, or manage disability income without voluntary and revocable consent from the individual.

(g) Oversight and Enforcement.
Violations of this section, including financial exploitation or coercive control of funds, shall constitute civil rights violations enforceable through federal and state mechanisms.

TITLE V — HEALTHCARE JUSTICE

Section 501. Neurodivergent Healthcare Non-Discrimination Standards

(a) Requirement of Neurodivergent-Competent Care.
Any hospital, clinic, emergency department, medical practice, behavioral health provider, or federally funded healthcare entity shall provide ND-competent care to neurodivergent individuals. ND-competent care shall include:
(1) trauma-informed practice;
(2) sensory-informed environmental design;
(3) communication-affirming practice, including AAC;
(4) rejection of behavioral compliance frameworks;
(5) understanding of neurodivergent embodiment, motor patterns, communication profiles, and sensory regulation;
(6) screening for diagnostic overshadowing and misattribution of symptoms.

(b) Condition for Receipt of Federal Funding.
No healthcare entity shall receive federal funds, Medicare reimbursement, Medicaid reimbursement, federal grants, or federal research contracts unless they can demonstrate full compliance with ND-competent care standards as verified by the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

(c) Ban on Diagnostic Overshadowing.
Healthcare providers shall not attribute physical symptoms, pain, distress, or medical conditions to autism, ADHD, intellectual disability, psychiatric diagnosis, communication differences, or perceived behavioral patterns without evidence-based clinical evaluation.

(d) Ban on Forced or Coercive Medical Procedures.
No medical procedure, sedation, restraint, medication, or intervention shall be performed without informed and revocable consent, except in narrowly defined, immediate life-threatening emergencies. Consent must be accessible through AAC or alternative communication when needed.

(e) Right to a Trained Advocate.
Any neurodivergent patient may request the presence of a trained advocate during medical appointments, emergency visits, procedures, or hospitalizations. Hospitals must make advocates available onsite or via telecommunication.

(f) Public Reporting.
Healthcare systems shall report quarterly data on restraint usage, patient complaints of discrimination, diagnostic overshadowing claims, and failures in communication access. Reports shall be publicly available.

(g) Civil Action.
Patients subjected to discrimination, diagnostic overshadowing, forced treatment, or denial of communication access may pursue civil action with entitlement to damages, attorney fees, and corrective relief.

Section 502. Legal Right to Sensory Access

(a) Sensory Access as a Civil Right.
Neurodivergent individuals shall have the right to sensory-accessible environments in all federally funded public spaces, healthcare facilities, essential services, and public transit systems. Sensory access is not optional, discretionary, or subject to accommodation gatekeeping.

(b) Sensory-Friendly Hours.
Hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, DMVs, social service offices, libraries, and essential public buildings shall provide sensory-friendly hours at least twice weekly, with:
(1) reduced lighting;
(2) reduced noise;
(3) predictable wait times;
(4) scent-free policies;
(5) reduction of visual clutter;
(6) access to quiet rooms.

(c) Quiet Rooms and Low-Stimulation Spaces.
All federally funded buildings and healthcare facilities shall provide quiet rooms or low-stimulation spaces that neurodivergent individuals may access voluntarily at any time. Quiet rooms shall never be used for seclusion or punishment.

(d) Chemical-Safe and Scent-Free Requirements.
Facilities must implement scent-free policies, minimize chemical exposure, and adopt ventilation standards that protect neurodivergent individuals from sensory harm caused by fragrances, cleaning agents, or environmental toxins.

(e) Accessible Public Transit Design.
Public transit systems receiving federal funds shall adopt neurodivergent-access design, including:
(1) quiet cars or low-noise seating sections;
(2) clear visual wayfinding and signage;
(3) predictable schedules;
(4) low-sensory boarding options;
(5) options for riders to communicate distress, overload, or access needs without penalty.

(f) Healthcare Environment Standards.
Hospitals and clinics must implement sensory-informed design in:
(1) waiting rooms;
(2) triage areas;
(3) examination rooms;
(4) procedure spaces;
(5) emergency departments.

These modifications shall prioritize neurodivergent bodily safety and autonomic stability.

(g) Training and Enforcement.
All healthcare and public-service employees interacting with the public shall receive training in sensory regulation, environmental triggers, and de-escalation without coercion. Facilities that fail to meet sensory-access requirements shall face penalties, loss of federal funds, or corrective oversight.

(h) Private Right of Action.
Denial of sensory access shall constitute discrimination, granting any affected individual the right to pursue civil action.

Section 503. Right to Communication, Sensory, and Emotional Support During Medical Care

(a) Right to Chosen Support Person.
Neurodivergent individuals have the right to a support person of their choosing during medical appointments, emergency services, procedures, hospitalizations, and mental health interventions, regardless of facility policies or infectious disease protocols (except for extreme, federally defined exceptions).

(b) Prohibition on Interpreting Distress as Non-Compliance.
Sensory overload, shutdown, dissociation, panic, or atypical communication shall not be interpreted as refusal of care, behavioral misconduct, aggression, or lack of cooperation.

(c) Non-Carceral De-escalation.
Healthcare providers must use non-coercive, sensory-informed, trauma-aware de-escalation practices. Seclusion, isolation, and restraint shall not be used in response to distress unless there is an immediate, life-threatening physical risk.

(d) Access to Predictable Information.
Providers must offer clear, accessible, step-by-step explanations of procedures, wait times, next steps, and environmental changes, including written or AAC-based support if requested.

(e) Ban on Punitive Discharge.
Hospitals and clinics shall not discharge or refuse treatment to neurodivergent individuals based on distress behavior, sensory needs, communication differences, or perceived difficulty.

(f) Regional ND Healthcare Advisory Boards.
Each state shall establish an advisory board composed of at least 60 percent neurodivergent members to guide ND-competent care, sensory access, and implementation of this Act.

TITLE VI — HOUSING, COMMUNITY, AND ANTI-INSTITUTIONALIZATION

Section 601. Abolition of Disability Institutions

(a) Prohibition on Construction of New Institutions.
No federal, state, or local funds shall be used for the construction, licensing, renovation, or expansion of disability institutions, including large group homes, residential treatment centers, locked psychiatric facilities, “behavioral rehabilitation” centers, or any congregate setting that restricts autonomy, movement, communication, or community participation.

(b) Definition Governed by Function, Not Size.
Any facility shall be classified as an institution if it:
(1) restricts resident movement;
(2) enforces staff-controlled schedules;
(3) uses surveillance, restraint, seclusion, or locked doors;
(4) segregates residents from the broader community;
(5) conditions autonomy on compliance;
(6) limits access to personal communication devices, AAC, the internet, or visitors.
A facility may be considered an institution regardless of the number of beds.

(c) Mandatory Closure Timeline.
Existing institutions shall develop federally approved transition plans to close within five years of enactment. Transition plans must:
(1) prioritize the autonomy, will, and preferences of residents;
(2) ensure access to communication supports and peer advocates during transition;
(3) prohibit discharge to homelessness, jails, shelters, or other institutions;
(4) guarantee community-based housing options under ND-led standards.

(d) Protections During Transition.
Residents shall retain all civil rights during the transition process. This includes:
(1) the right to refuse placement in another institution or coerced setting;
(2) freedom from forced guardianship;
(3) full access to AAC;
(4) access to legal counsel and ND-led advocacy.

(e) Ban on Institutional Rebranding.
No facility may rebrand itself under alternative terms—such as “treatment center,” “developmental residence,” “behavioral stabilization,” “life skills program,” or “community living campus”—to evade the definition of an institution. Any attempt to do so shall be treated as noncompliance under this Act.

(f) Civil and Criminal Liability.
Facilities or administrators that maintain institutional conditions after the mandated transition shall be subject to civil fines, federal funding loss, and, in cases involving abuse or coercion, criminal referral.

Section 602. Community-Led Housing Infrastructure

(a) Federal Funding for Neurodivergent-Led Housing Cooperatives.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall establish a grant and financing program dedicated to the development of neurodivergent-led housing cooperatives, mutual aid living networks, and community land trusts designed by and for neurodivergent people.

(b) Requirements for ND-Led Housing Projects.
To qualify for federal support, housing projects must:
(1) demonstrate at least 51 percent neurodivergent leadership;
(2) guarantee tenant autonomy, including the right to come and go freely;
(3) prohibit surveillance-based care, behavior plans, restrictions on stimming, or forced communal activities;
(4) center sensory access;
(5) provide voluntary, trauma-informed community support—never mandatory or compliance-based.

(c) Sensory-Access Building Codes.
HUD shall establish national sensory-access housing standards requiring:
(1) noise reduction materials;
(2) option for low-lighting and dimmable fixtures;
(3) scent-free and chemical-minimized construction practices;
(4) accessible ventilation;
(5) predictable, low-clutter architectural layouts;
(6) private spaces for regulation;
(7) green space or access to outdoor areas.

(d) Prohibition on Group Home–Style Rules.
Housing developed under this Act shall not impose rules typical of group homes, including:
(1) staff-controlled schedules;
(2) curfews;
(3) chore charts used as behavioral control;
(4) restrictions on visitors, internet, or phone use;
(5) forced communal meals;
(6) punishment for sensory or communication needs.
These practices are hereby defined as coercive and shall be prohibited.

(e) Right to Housing Without Coercion.
No neurodivergent person shall be required to participate in treatment, behavior plans, service programs, or compliance-based systems as a condition of receiving or maintaining housing.

(f) Accessible Emergency Housing.
States shall develop sensory-accessible emergency and transitional housing designed through neurodivergent-led planning. These environments must be free from congregate conditions that replicate institutional harm.

(g) Anti-Displacement Protections.
Urban redevelopment projects funded under this Act shall include protections ensuring that neurodivergent residents are not displaced due to rising rents, zoning changes, or neighborhood development.

(h) Community Ownership and Governance.
Housing cooperatives and land trusts funded by this Act must implement decision-making structures that:
(1) center neurodivergent leadership;
(2) use consensus or modified consensus models;
(3) prohibit hierarchical, staff-controlled authority;
(4) prioritize resident agency.

(i) Annual Public Accountability Reports.
ND-led housing entities shall report annually on governance, accessibility, resident satisfaction, and compliance with sensory and autonomy standards. Reports shall be published by the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

TITLE VII — LEADERSHIP, POWER, AND NEURODIVERGENT GOVERNANCE

Section 701. Mandatory Neurodivergent Leadership in All ND-Related Systems

(a) Applicability.
This section applies to all federal, state, and local agencies, departments, advisory councils, programs, grant recipients, research bodies, educational institutions, healthcare systems, and nonprofit organizations that design, operate, study, or provide services related to neurodivergent people.

(b) Minimum Leadership Thresholds.
Entities described in subsection (a) shall include neurodivergent individuals in leadership as follows:
(1) at least 30 percent of all decision-making positions shall be held by neurodivergent individuals;
(2) neurodivergent leaders shall hold full voting power equal to or greater than non-ND members;
(3) ND leaders may not be confined to advisory roles without authority.

(c) Staffing Requirements.
Roles that directly serve neurodivergent people—including case managers, educators, therapists, program directors, patient advocates, crisis responders, and accessibility coordinators—shall include:
(1) a minimum of 20 percent neurodivergent staff upon enactment;
(2) a minimum of 30 percent neurodivergent staff within five years.

(d) Protection Against Tokenism.
Organizations are prohibited from appointing neurodivergent individuals to symbolic, advisory, or non-voting positions solely for the appearance of compliance. Any governance structure must demonstrate:
(1) shared power;
(2) clear lines of decision-making authority;
(3) ND involvement in budgetary, policy, and operational decisions;
(4) ND control over programs affecting ND communities.

(e) Training and Capacity Support.
Entities required to meet leadership thresholds shall provide neurodivergent leaders with:
(1) accessible administrative support;
(2) sensory-informed meeting environments;
(3) communication access, including AAC;
(4) flexible scheduling structures;
(5) training stipends and leadership development resources.

(f) Protection Against Discrimination.
Neurodivergent leaders shall not face retaliation or removal for advocating for ND justice, resisting coercive practices, or challenging organizational decisions. Any retaliation shall constitute a civil rights violation under this Act.

(g) Compliance as Condition of Funding.
Failure to meet leadership thresholds shall result in:
(1) corrective action plans within six months;
(2) suspension of federal funding if compliance is not achieved within one year;
(3) public listing by the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

Section 702. Legal Definition of Neurodivergent-Led Entities

(a) Definition.
For purposes of federal classification and funding, an entity shall be considered “neurodivergent-led” only if:
(1) at least 51 percent of decision-making authority is held by neurodivergent individuals;
(2) neurodivergent leadership holds full voting power;
(3) ND leaders direct overall vision, strategy, budgeting, staffing, and program design.

(b) Exclusion Criteria.
An entity may not be considered neurodivergent-led if it:
(1) uses ABA or any coercive behavioral practice;
(2) employs surveillance-based “care” technologies;
(3) uses restraint, seclusion, or institutional control;
(4) implements compliance-based normalization programs;
(5) disciplines or penalizes neurodivergent individuals for sensory or communication needs.

(c) Public Disclosure.
Any organization claiming ND-led status shall publicly disclose:
(1) leadership composition;
(2) percentage of ND leaders;
(3) governance structure;
(4) ND representation on the board and executive team;
(5) any history of coercive or carceral practices.

(d) Federal Verification.
The Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission shall verify ND-led status through:
(1) review of bylaws, budgets, and governance records;
(2) interviews with ND staff and leadership;
(3) community input regarding authenticity of leadership representation.

(e) Penalties for Misrepresentation.
Entities that falsely claim to be neurodivergent-led shall:
(1) lose eligibility for federal grants and contracts for five years;
(2) be subject to civil fines;
(3) be listed publicly for misrepresentation.

Section 703. Governance Requirements for Research and Academic Institutions

(a) ND Governance in Research.
Any federally funded research involving neurodivergent people—including autism research, behavioral health research, AAC development, sensory science, genetics, neuroscience, education research, and social-behavioral research—shall include neurodivergent individuals as:
(1) principal investigators;
(2) co-investigators;
(3) advisory board members with voting power;
(4) ethics reviewers.

(b) Ban on Research That Reinforces Pathology or Normalization.
Federal research funds may not support projects that:
(1) seek to reduce or eliminate autistic traits;
(2) attempt to normalize neurodivergent communication, movement, or sensory expression;
(3) frame neurodivergence as a disease, disorder, or deficit requiring cure;
(4) pursue genetic elimination, prenatal detection, or selective prevention of neurodivergent traits.

(c) ND Leadership in University Programs.
Universities receiving federal funds for programs involving neurodivergent students or research must:
(1) include ND faculty in leadership roles;
(2) ensure ND representation on accessibility committees;
(3) include ND scholars in curriculum design;
(4) create ND-led mentorship and peer support structures.

(d) Ethics Review Requirements.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) reviewing studies related to neurodivergent people must include:
(1) at least two neurodivergent members with equal voting power;
(2) training in neurodiversity-affirming ethics;
(3) understanding of sensory, communication, and consent needs unique to neurodivergent participants.

(e) Participant Rights.
Neurodivergent research participants have the right to:
(1) withdraw at any time without penalty;
(2) receive AAC or communication support;
(3) access sensory-informed study environments;
(4) refuse behavioral tasks that induce distress;
(5) decline eye contact, forced compliance, or normalization demands.

Section 704. Enforcement of Governance Standards

(a) Oversight by ND-Led Commission.
The Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission shall monitor and enforce compliance with leadership and governance requirements.

(b) Corrective Action.
Entities not meeting requirements shall submit corrective action plans that:
(1) outline timelines for achieving ND leadership thresholds;
(2) restructure governance as needed;
(3) allocate resources to build ND participation capacity;
(4) remove any coercive policies preventing ND leadership involvement.

(c) Penalties for Noncompliance.
Continued noncompliance shall result in:
(1) fines;
(2) loss of federal funding;
(3) suspension of licensure;
(4) public designation as noncompliant.

(d) Private Right of Action.
Neurodivergent individuals denied leadership opportunities or discriminated against in governance roles may bring civil action seeking damages, reinstatement, and attorney fees.

TITLE VIII — FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN NEURODIVERGENT COMMUNITIES

Section 801. Establishment of the Neurodivergent Community Infrastructure Grant Program (NCIGP)

(a) Creation of Program.
A federally funded, annually recurring grant program is hereby established to support the development, expansion, and stabilization of neurodivergent-led community infrastructure across the United States. The program shall be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services in partnership with the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

(b) Purpose.
The purpose of the NCIGP is to:
(1) sustain neurodivergent-led organizations;
(2) strengthen peer support networks and community-based care models;
(3) develop accessible physical spaces designed by ND communities;
(4) expand ND-led arts, cultural work, research, and public scholarship;
(5) build non-carceral crisis response systems;
(6) fund ND-led credentialing, training, and education programs;
(7) support mutual aid networks and community resource distribution;
(8) ensure that ND communities have the material infrastructure necessary for autonomy and liberation.

Section 802. Eligible Entities

(a) Eligibility Requirements.
To receive funding under the NCIGP, an entity must:
(1) demonstrate at least 51 percent neurodivergent leadership with decision-making authority;
(2) maintain governance structures aligned with disability justice, neurodiversity-affirming practice, and abolitionist ethics;
(3) have a documented history or clear commitment to rejecting coercive, behaviorist, and carceral practices;
(4) provide programs that serve and center neurodivergent individuals;
(5) be transparent about leadership, staffing, and decision-making structures.

(b) Prioritization.
Priority shall be given to:
(1) community-based organizations;
(2) Black, Indigenous, and People of Color–led ND organizations;
(3) rural ND community networks;
(4) organizations serving nonspeaking, multiply marginalized, or high-barrier ND individuals;
(5) ND-led start-up organizations building new community spaces.

Section 803. Funding Allocation

(a) Minimum Federal Investment.
Congress shall appropriate no less than $500 million in annual funding for the NCIGP. This amount shall be indexed to inflation and adjusted annually based on need assessments conducted by the ND Oversight Commission.

(b) Use of Funds.
Funds may be used for:
(1) staffing, salaries, and operational support for ND-led nonprofits;
(2) creation and maintenance of sensory-access community centers;
(3) ND-led arts, theater, media, and cultural production;
(4) ND-led crisis teams and alternative emergency response systems;
(5) peer support training, certification, and infrastructure;
(6) development of ND-affirming education and professional programs;
(7) community land trusts and cooperative housing connected to ND spaces;
(8) research initiatives led by ND scholars and community researchers;
(9) accessibility renovations for existing community spaces;
(10) public events, festivals, gatherings, and cultural celebrations designed under ND leadership.

(c) Prohibited Uses.
Funds shall not be used for:
(1) ABA or any coercive behavioral interventions;
(2) police programs or partnerships with law enforcement;
(3) surveillance technologies;
(4) institutional placements or congregate care;
(5) workforce programs that rely on compliance-based normalization;
(6) marketing or fundraising by non–ND-led organizations using ND issues for profit.

Section 804. ND-Led Credentialing and Training Initiatives

(a) Support for ND-Led Credentialing Programs.
The NCIGP shall provide grants to ND-led entities to create training and credentialing programs that:
(1) expand the ND workforce;
(2) certify ND-competent educators, clinicians, consultants, coaches, peer supporters, and accessibility specialists;
(3) establish ND-led standards for care, education, access, and leadership.

(b) Autonomy From Professional Guilds.
Credentialing programs funded under this section shall not be required to align with existing professional guilds or licensing boards that maintain coercive, pathologizing, or behaviorist frameworks. ND-led credentialing programs shall have independent authority over standards, evaluation, and recognition.

(c) Federal Recognition.
Credentials developed under this section shall be recognized by all federally funded programs, including education systems, healthcare entities, and public agencies, for hiring and leadership qualification.

Section 805. Funding for Peer Support and Community Care Networks

(a) Peer Support as Essential Infrastructure.
Peer-led support, including ND peer mentorship, trauma-informed mutual aid networks, parent and caregiver peer education, and community accompaniment, shall be recognized as essential public health infrastructure.

(b) Grant Priorities.
The NCIGP shall allocate dedicated funding for peer-led:
(1) crisis response;
(2) care coordination;
(3) social support networks;
(4) community education programs;
(5) conflict resolution and harm reduction teams;
(6) sensory regulation hubs.

(c) Autonomy in Practice.
Peer support programs funded by this Act shall operate independently from:
(1) police;
(2) behavioral control systems;
(3) institutional service providers;
(4) coercive mental health agencies;
(5) compliance-based therapeutic models.

Section 806. Community Accountability and Transparency

(a) Public Reporting.
All NCIGP-funded entities must publish annual reports detailing:
(1) leadership composition;
(2) program outcomes;
(3) financial transparency;
(4) alignment with ND justice values;
(5) feedback from ND participants and community members.

(b) Participatory Budgeting.
Entities receiving $500,000 or more annually must implement participatory budgeting processes led by neurodivergent community members.

(c) Corrective Action for Noncompliance.
Entities failing to meet ND-led standards or violating any provision of this Act shall:
(1) receive written notice;
(2) be required to submit a corrective plan;
(3) face funding suspension if corrective action is not completed.

Section 807. Long-Term Sustainability and Federal Partnership

(a) Ten-Year Federal Commitment.
Congress affirms a ten-year minimum commitment to the NCIGP to ensure stability and predictability for ND-led organizations.

(b) Federal-Community Partnership Councils.
Regional councils composed of at least 60 percent neurodivergent community members shall guide implementation, advise federal agencies, and ensure accountability.

(c) Evaluation Metrics.
Success of the NCIGP shall be measured not through compliance or productivity metrics but through:
(1) community autonomy;
(2) safety;
(3) sensory-access improvements;
(4) stability;
(5) reduction in institutionalization;
(6) reduction in crisis interventions;
(7) growth of ND-led leadership.

TITLE IX — CULTURAL, RESEARCH, AND CIVIL RIGHTS TRANSFORMATION

Section 901. Ban on Surveillance-Based “Care”

(a) Prohibition of Surveillance Technologies.
No public or private entity, school, healthcare facility, service provider, disability organization, or federally funded program shall use surveillance-based technologies on neurodivergent individuals, including but not limited to:
(1) GPS trackers;
(2) “wandering prevention” devices;
(3) biometric monitoring systems;
(4) hidden cameras;
(5) restraint chairs;
(6) behavior-monitoring or scoring apps;
(7) seclusion room sensors;
(8) continuous video, audio, or wearable surveillance.

(b) Definition of Surveillance-Based Care.
Surveillance-based care refers to any practice that monitors, records, tracks, or evaluates an individual for the purpose of controlling behavior, enforcing compliance, or predicting deviation from neurotypical norms. The presence of therapeutic intent does not exempt a practice from being considered surveillance.

(c) Ban on Data Harvesting.
Collection of behavioral, biometric, or movement data for the purpose of profiling neurodivergent individuals is prohibited. Data shall not be sold, transferred, or analyzed using algorithmic risk scoring systems.

(d) Penalties and Enforcement.
Entities violating this section shall face:
(1) federal fines;
(2) loss of federal funding;
(3) removal of contracts;
(4) public listing by the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission.

(e) Non-Coercive Alternatives.
Any program previously reliant on surveillance must transition to community-based, relational, ND-led support models within eighteen months of enactment.

Section 902. Federal Support for Neurodivergent Cultural Expression

(a) Establishment of ND Cultural Funding Streams.
The National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and related agencies shall establish dedicated funding streams for neurodivergent-led:
(1) arts projects;
(2) theater, dance, and performance work;
(3) writing, journalism, and public scholarship;
(4) museums, archives, and cultural memory projects;
(5) filmmaking, digital media, podcasts, and broadcasting;
(6) academic programs in neurodiversity studies;
(7) creative community-building initiatives.

(b) Eligibility Requirements.
To receive funding under this section, projects must:
(1) be created, led, or governed by at least 51 percent neurodivergent individuals;
(2) reject pathologizing, cure-oriented, or behaviorist narratives;
(3) advance disability justice;
(4) strengthen neurodivergent culture, identity, or collective memory.

(c) Representation Standards.
Funded projects must:
(1) avoid depicting neurodivergent people as burdens, tragedies, or objects of inspiration;
(2) center neurodivergent lived experience, artistic agency, and narrative authority;
(3) prioritize multiply marginalized ND voices.

(d) Federal Cultural Access Requirements.
All federally funded cultural institutions—including museums, theaters, galleries, and historical centers—must adopt sensory-access design standards and ND-informed accessibility practices.

(e) Public Broadcasting and Media Inclusion.
Public broadcasting entities shall ensure representation of neurodivergent creators, journalists, and storytellers in programming and leadership roles.

Section 903. Disability Language Freedom Act

(a) Right to Self-Identification.
Every individual has the right to choose their own neurodivergent identity language—including identity-first language, diagnostic language, reclaimed language, cultural terms, or AAC-based terms. Institutions shall respect and use the chosen language of the individual.

(b) Prohibition on Pathologizing Terminology.
Federally funded agencies, schools, medical systems, and service providers shall not impose or require the use of:
(1) functioning labels;
(2) severity levels;
(3) “low-functioning” or “high-functioning” labels;
(4) “special needs” terminology;
(5) pathologizing descriptors not medically necessary (e.g., “disruptive behavior disorder,” “noncompliant,” “treatment-resistant”).

(c) Restrictions on Medical Documentation.
Medical or educational documentation shall avoid deficit-based descriptions when not clinically essential. Language must reflect autonomy, communication rights, sensory needs, and identity—not compliance or normalization.

(d) Ban on Forced Identity Categories.
Entities may not require individuals to identify with a label they do not claim (e.g., “person with autism,” “behavioral disorder patient,” “high-functioning,” “severe autism”) as a condition of receiving care, access, or services.

(e) Linguistic Discrimination as Civil Rights Harm.
Failure to respect an individual’s chosen identity language shall constitute discrimination and be enforceable under all civil action and oversight mechanisms established in this Act.

(f) Cultural Competency Requirements.
All federally funded training programs must include education on:
(1) identity-first language;
(2) neurodivergent cultural lexicons;
(3) AAC-based identity terms;
(4) historical analysis of pathologizing language and eugenics;
(5) linguistic oppression and epistemic justice.

Section 904. Protections for Neurodivergent Participation in Public Life

(a) Right to Access Public Spaces Without Suppression.
Neurodivergent individuals have the right to exist in public spaces without being policed, questioned, removed, or stigmatized for:
(1) stimming;
(2) pacing;
(3) scripting or echolalia;
(4) monotone or atypical speech;
(5) AAC use;
(6) sensory tools;
(7) nonspeaking communication;
(8) movement or regulation needs.

(b) Ban on Exclusion Based on Communication Style.
No meeting, public forum, classroom, event, or service may exclude or reprimand an individual for using AAC, taking regulation breaks, avoiding eye contact, or declining to speak.

(c) Representation Requirements for Public Boards and Commissions.
Federal, state, and local boards that affect public life—including transportation, urban planning, cultural affairs, education, and public health—must include:
(1) at least 20 percent neurodivergent representation;
(2) accommodations for ND communication methods;
(3) sensory-informed meeting environments.

(d) Cultural and Civic Safety Standards.
Public facilities, events, festivals, and public gatherings shall implement sensory-access policies and ND-inclusive design standards.

Section 905. Research Ethics and Representation

(a) Right to Ethical Research Participation.
Neurodivergent individuals participating in research have the right to:
(1) informed and accessible consent;
(2) sensory-access research environments;
(3) the option to withdraw at any time;
(4) choose AAC or other communication supports;
(5) decline behavioral tasks that cause distress.

(b) Ban on Pathology-Based Research Agendas.
Federal funds shall not support research that:
(1) seeks to cure or eliminate neurodivergent traits;
(2) promotes prenatal detection or selective termination;
(3) normalizes autistic or ADHD expression;
(4) frames neurodivergence as disorder requiring correction.

(c) Mandatory Inclusion of ND Researchers.
All federally funded studies involving neurodivergent people must include:
(1) ND principal or co-investigators;
(2) ND-led ethics review;
(3) ND advisory structures with voting power.

(d) Transparency Requirements.
All research entities must disclose the aims, frameworks, funding sources, potential conflicts of interest, and expected outcomes of ND-related research.

TITLE X — IMPLEMENTATION & OVERSIGHT

Section 1001. Establishment of the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission

(a) Creation of Commission.
There is hereby established an independent federal agency known as the Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission (hereafter “the Commission”). The Commission shall operate autonomously from all existing federal departments, with a mandate to protect the rights of neurodivergent individuals across the United States.

(b) Composition.
The Commission shall be composed of:
(1) no fewer than 70 percent neurodivergent commissioners;
(2) commissioners selected through a public nomination process with ND community input;
(3) representation across race, gender, class, disability, and communication modalities;
(4) individuals with documented expertise in ND-led advocacy, disability justice, community care, sensory accessibility, AAC, trauma-informed practice, and non-carceral policy.

(c) Powers and Authority.
The Commission shall have the authority to:
(1) enforce all provisions of this Act;
(2) investigate violations in any federally or state-funded program;
(3) impose civil penalties;
(4) deny or suspend federal funding;
(5) require corrective action plans;
(6) issue subpoenas;
(7) publish mandatory public reports;
(8) audit compliance with sensory access, governance, non-carceral care, and ND-competent practice.

(d) Regional Offices.
The Commission shall establish at least one regional office per state, staffed by ND-led teams specializing in crisis response oversight, education justice, healthcare, labor compliance, and community accessibility.

Section 1002. Enforcement Mechanisms

(a) Funding Contingency.
Federal funding—including grants, Medicaid reimbursements, contracts, research funding, education dollars, housing funds, and public safety appropriations—shall be contingent upon compliance with all provisions of this Act.

(b) Civil Penalties.
Entities found in violation may be subject to:
(1) fines;
(2) restitution;
(3) mandated training under ND-led programs;
(4) corrective action plans;
(5) federal monitoring;
(6) leadership restructuring requirements.

(c) Public Noncompliance Listing.
The Commission shall maintain and publish a centralized National Neurodiversity Justice Compliance Registrylisting:
(1) compliant entities;
(2) noncompliant entities;
(3) corrective action timelines;
(4) resolved violations;
(5) outstanding investigations.

(d) Mandatory Reporting.
All federally funded institutions must report quarterly to the Commission on:
(1) restraint incidents;
(2) seclusion incidents;
(3) involuntary treatment;
(4) use of surveillance technologies;
(5) leadership composition;
(6) discrimination complaints;
(7) accessibility failures;
(8) funding usage.

Failure to report constitutes noncompliance.

Section 1003. Private Right of Action

(a) Individual Enforcement.
Any neurodivergent individual, or their advocate, who experiences discrimination, coercion, restraint, institutional harm, surveillance-based control, denial of access, leadership exclusion, or violation of rights established under this Act, may bring civil action in federal court.

(b) Available Remedies.
Courts may grant:
(1) compensatory damages;
(2) punitive damages in cases of severe violation;
(3) injunctive relief;
(4) reinstatement;
(5) attorney fees;
(6) oversight-imposed reforms.

(c) Collective Action.
Neurodivergent individuals may file class actions for systemic harms affecting multiple people or entire communities.

Section 1004. State and Local Implementation Requirements

(a) Alignment of State Law.
States shall align education codes, healthcare regulations, labor laws, criminal codes, housing regulations, and disability service frameworks with the provisions of this Act within twenty-four months.

(b) State Neurodiversity Justice Offices.
Each state shall establish a State Office of Neurodiversity Justice, which must be at least 60 percent neurodivergent-led and responsible for:
(1) overseeing local implementation;
(2) providing technical assistance;
(3) monitoring compliance;
(4) coordinating with the federal Commission;
(5) collecting public input from ND communities.

(c) Local Government Requirements.
Local governments shall:
(1) conduct accessibility audits of public buildings;
(2) redesign crisis response systems to eliminate police involvement;
(3) ensure sensory-access compliance in all municipal services;
(4) adopt ND-affirming communication protocols.

Section 1005. Public Accountability and Transparency

(a) National Public Dashboard.
The Commission shall operate an online, publicly accessible Neurodiversity Justice Accountability Dashboarddetailing:
(1) compliance metrics;
(2) funding distribution;
(3) outcomes of investigations;
(4) community feedback;
(5) sensory access reports;
(6) labor justice outcomes;
(7) educational compliance;
(8) crisis response metrics.

(b) Participatory Oversight.
The Commission shall convene annual national gatherings—virtual or in-person—open to all neurodivergent people, to review progress, gather feedback, and shape future directives. These gatherings must include nonspeaking-accessible formats, AAC-based participation, and sensory-friendly design.

(c) Whistleblower Protections.
Neurodivergent individuals who report violations shall be protected from retaliation. Retaliation shall constitute a civil rights harm with immediate enforcement action.

Section 1006. Implementation Timelines

(a) Immediate Provisions (0–12 months).
The following provisions shall take effect immediately upon enactment:
(1) ban on seclusion and restraint;
(2) ban on ABA;
(3) prohibition on forced treatment;
(4) rights to AAC;
(5) ban on surveillance technology;
(6) protections against linguistic discrimination.

(b) Short-Term Provisions (12–24 months).
Within twenty-four months, all entities must:
(1) remove police from schools;
(2) redesign crisis response systems;
(3) implement ND-competent healthcare training;
(4) update building codes for sensory access;
(5) begin leadership restructuring.

(c) Medium-Term Provisions (2–5 years).
Within five years:
(1) all disability institutions shall be closed;
(2) all sheltered workshops shall be converted;
(3) ND staffing and leadership minimums must be reached;
(4) housing and education systems must complete sensory-access redesign.

(d) Long-Term Provisions (5–10 years).
Within ten years:
(1) national infrastructure for ND-led community spaces must be established;
(2) non-carceral crisis teams must be implemented in all regions;
(3) ND-led credentialing programs must be widespread and federally recognized.

Section 1007. Rulemaking Authority

(a) Authority Granted.
The Neurodiversity Justice Oversight Commission is authorized to issue regulations, guidance, standards, definitions, and enforcement protocols necessary to implement this Act.

(b) Public Comment.
All rules must undergo a public comment period with direct consultation from neurodivergent communities, including nonspeaking-accessible modalities.

(c) Supremacy.
Regulations issued under this Act shall supersede contradictory state or local regulations unless state or local provisions offer greater protections.

CONCLUSION

The Neurodiversity Justice Act is a declaration that neurodivergent people are not problems to solve, but peoples to whom this nation owes safety, dignity, and self-determination. For more than a century, systems built in the image of a narrow “normal” have treated autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, dyspraxic, Tourette, OCD, nonspeaking, intellectually disabled, and otherwise neurodivergent people as objects of intervention rather than subjects of history. Those systems have used institutions, behavior programs, poverty traps, police, and pathologizing science to discipline our bodies and control our lives. This Act says that era must end.

In its place, the Neurodiversity Justice Act offers a different blueprint: one built on disability justice, abolitionist practice, and collective care. It affirms that neurodivergent people have the right to refuse coerced treatment, to access communication on our own terms, to parent and form families without eugenic interference, and to live in homes and communities that do not resemble institutions. It affirms that we have the right to education without restraint, seclusion, or behavioral punishment; to workplaces that respect sensory reality and cognitive variation; to healthcare that sees our bodies as worthy of care, not as puzzles to be managed or liabilities to be controlled.

This Act insists that crisis is not a crime, that distress is not defiance, and that support cannot be built on surveillance. It redirects public resources away from compliance and toward peer support, ND-led housing, community infrastructure, and cultural work. It insists that neurodivergent people belong not at the margins of advisory boards, but at the center of governance, research, and decision-making. It codifies what neurodivergent communities have been saying for generations: nothing about us without us is not a slogan; it is a minimum standard of justice.

Implementation will require transformation at every level of public life: federal agencies, state governments, school districts, hospitals, employers, research institutions, and service providers will all have to change. But the knowledge to do so already exists. Neurodivergent communities have spent decades developing peer-led crisis teams, mutual aid networks, sensory-informed classrooms, ND-affirming therapy, cooperative workplaces, and community land trusts. This Act recognizes that expertise, funds it, and makes it the baseline for public policy.

Ultimately, the Neurodiversity Justice Act is not only about neurodivergent survival. It is about building a world in which all minds can exist without fear of being punished for how they sense, think, feel, move, or communicate. By centering neurodivergent liberation, this Act advances freedom for everyone who has ever been told that their way of being in the world is too much, too strange, too slow, too intense, not efficient enough, not compliant enough, not normal enough. It is an invitation to design systems that are not merely less harmful, but fundamentally more humane.

With this Act, the United States acknowledges that the harms inflicted on neurodivergent people were not inevitable. They were policy choices. The Neurodiversity Justice Act is a different choice. It is a commitment to move from pathology to power, from management to solidarity, from control to care. It marks a turning point toward a future in which neurodivergent people are not merely tolerated or accommodated, but recognized as essential architects of a more just world.