What the LSAC lawsuit is about

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) faced a lawsuit from a legally blind plaintiff over the games section of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). The plaintiff argued that the games section—also called the logic games or analytical reasoning section—cannot be made accessible to blind test-takers through standard accommodations like screen readers, because the visual spatial reasoning required is inherent to how the section is designed and administered.

This case matters because it raises a fundamental question about test design and disability access: when a test component relies on visual layout in a way that cannot be translated into an alternative format without changing what is being measured, does the test violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? The lawsuit challenged whether LSAC had a legal obligation to redesign the games section, offer an alternative version, or remove it entirely for blind test-takers.

Key Takeaways

  • The LSAC games section uses visual diagrams and spatial reasoning that standard screen readers cannot convey in a way that preserves the test's intended difficulty or format.
  • The plaintiff argued that LSAC's existing accommodations—extra time, screen readers, and magnification—do not solve the core problem that the section itself is visually dependent.
  • This case is relevant to anyone with a visual disability considering law school, because it affects how LSAC must handle test access going forward.
  • The outcome influences whether test-makers must redesign sections for accessibility or whether they can argue that some test components are inherently visual and cannot be modified.
  • If you are blind or have low vision and are considering the LSAT, you should understand what accommodations are currently available and what the legal landscape around them looks like.

How the games section works and why it is hard to adapt

The LSAT games section presents logic puzzles in a visual format. Test-takers see a diagram—for example, a row of boxes or a branching tree—and must answer questions about how elements can be arranged within that structure. The visual layout is not decorative; it is central to how the puzzle is presented and solved.

A screen reader converts text and images into audio or braille output. But a screen reader cannot easily convey spatial relationships. If a puzzle shows five boxes in a row, with constraints written below, a screen reader will read the text of the constraints but will not communicate the visual arrangement in a way that lets a blind test-taker solve the puzzle as sighted test-takers do. Converting the visual puzzle into a purely text-based format changes the puzzle itself—it may become easier, harder, or straightforward a different task.

LSAC's standard accommodations for blind and low-vision test-takers include extended time, screen reader compatibility, and large-print versions. But the plaintiff's argument was that these accommodations do not address the fundamental inaccessibility of the games section itself. Extra time does not help if the format cannot be understood. A screen reader does not solve a problem that is rooted in visual design.

The legal standard: undue burden versus fundamental alteration

Under the ADA, organizations must provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause undue financial or administrative burden, or would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or product. LSAC's defense likely rested on the argument that redesigning or removing the games section would fundamentally alter the LSAT—that the games section is a core part of what the test measures, and removing it would make the test something different.

The plaintiff's counter-argument was that LSAC had not genuinely tried to make the section accessible. If a redesigned version could be created—one that preserved the test's purpose but made it accessible to blind test-takers—then the fundamental alteration defense would not explore. The question became: is the visual format essential to what the games section measures, or is it straightforward how LSAC chose to present it?

This distinction matters because it determines what LSAC's obligations are. If the visual format is essential, LSAC may have no legal duty to change it. If the visual format is incidental—a choice rather than a necessity—then LSAC may be required to find an accessible alternative.

What happened in the case

The lawsuit was filed in federal court and raised claims under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination by organizations that receive federal funding. LSAC does receive federal funding through law schools and student loan programs, making Section 504 applicable.

The case drew attention from disability rights organizations and law school admissions experts. Some argued that LSAC should have invested in accessible test design years earlier. Others contended that the games section's visual nature made it genuinely difficult to adapt without changing what was being tested.

Depending on when you are reading this, the case may have been settled, dismissed, or decided by a court. Settlement agreements sometimes include changes to how LSAC handles accommodations or test design, but they are often confidential. If the case went to trial, the court's ruling would set a precedent for how test-makers must handle accessibility in high-stakes exams.

What this means for blind and low-vision law school applicants

If you are blind or have low vision and are considering law school, this case affects your options in several ways. First, it highlights the real limitations of current accommodations for the games section. If you have used a screen reader or large-print format and found the games section inaccessible, you are not alone—that is exactly what the lawsuit documented.

Second, the case may lead to changes in how LSAC administers the test. Possible outcomes include a redesigned games section, an alternative version for blind test-takers, or a policy allowing blind applicants to take a modified version of the LSAT. You should check LSAC's website or contact their accommodations office directly to learn what options are currently available.

Third, this case is relevant if you are considering whether to pursue law school at all. Some blind and low-vision applicants have chosen not to take the LSAT because the games section felt inaccessible, even with accommodations. If the lawsuit results in a more accessible test, that barrier may be removed. If it does not, you may want to explore law schools that do not require the LSAT or that have alternative admissions pathways for applicants with disabilities.

Finding a disability lawyer if you face similar barriers

If you have experienced discrimination or inaccessibility in standardized testing, law school admissions, or other areas of education, you may want to consult a disability rights lawyer. A lawyer can review your situation, explain your rights under the ADA and Section 504, and advise you on whether you have a claim.

Disability rights lawyers often work on contingency, meaning they take a percentage of any settlement or judgment rather than charging an upfront fee. Some work for nonprofit organizations like the National Disability Rights Network or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Disability Rights Program, and offer free or low-cost consultations. You can find a lawyer through your state bar association's disability law section, through disability advocacy organizations, or through referral services like the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF).

When you contact a lawyer, be prepared to describe what happened, when it happened, what accommodations you requested, and what the outcome was. Bring any written communications—emails, letters, or documents from the testing organization—because these form the basis of your claim.

The broader conversation about test design and accessibility

The LSAC case is part of a larger debate about how standardized tests should be designed. Some experts argue that tests should be designed for accessibility from the start—a principle called "universal design"—rather than retrofitting accommodations after the fact. Under universal design, a test would be created in a way that works for people with a range of disabilities without requiring special modifications.

Others argue that some tests have inherent visual or auditory components that cannot be removed without changing what is being measured. A test of spatial reasoning, for example, might be difficult to adapt for blind test-takers without fundamentally changing the task. The question is whether test-makers have a legal obligation to try, and what "trying" actually means.

The LSAC case may influence how other standardized tests—the GRE, GMAT, medical licensing exams—approach accessibility. If courts rule that test-makers must redesign sections to be accessible, that sets a precedent. If courts accept the fundamental alteration defense, that signals that some tests can remain largely unchanged despite accessibility barriers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I take the LSAT if I am blind?

Yes. LSAC offers accommodations including screen readers, large-print test booklets, and extended time. However, the games section remains difficult to access even with these accommodations, which is what the lawsuit addressed. Contact LSAC's accommodations office to discuss what options are available for your specific situation.

What if I cannot access the games section even with accommodations?

You should document your experience and contact LSAC in writing to explain the barrier. You can also consult a disability rights lawyer to discuss whether you have a claim under the ADA or Section 504. Some law schools may consider your circumstances during admissions review.

Are there law schools that do not require the LSAT?

A growing number of law schools have made the LSAT optional or have alternative admissions pathways. You can search for these schools on the Law School Admission Council website or contact schools directly. Some schools may also be willing to discuss accommodations or alternative testing arrangements if you have a documented disability.

What is the difference between the ADA and Section 504?

Both laws prohibit disability discrimination, but Section 504 applies specifically to organizations that receive federal funding, while the ADA is broader. LSAC is covered by both because law schools receive federal student aid. A lawyer can explain which law applies to your situation.

How long does a case like this usually take?

Disability rights cases can take months to years, depending on whether they are settled or go to trial. Settlement can happen at any point. If you are considering legal action, ask a lawyer about the timeline and what to expect.