Public Comments, Real Results

An exception for educational institutions disappears

In 2023, the Department of Justice proposed new rules requiring state and local government websites and mobile apps to meet digital accessibility standards, a significant step for people with disabilities who rely on those sites to vote, access government services, and participate in public life.

The proposed rule included an exception: password-protected course content (the readings, videos, and assignments that students log in to access every day) would have been treated differently for educational institutions.

Disability rights advocates and people with disabilities pushed back in public comments, arguing that carving out educational content would leave students without equal access to the very materials they need to participate in school. The exemption, they argued, undermined the rule's core purpose.

When the Department of Justice published the final rule in April 2024, the exception was gone. All content that students need to participate in a public school or university's programs, including material posted by teachers on course portals, must now meet the same accessibility standard.

20,000 comments pause a proposed rule change

In May 2025, the Department of Energy proposed eliminating long-standing government requirements that ensure buildings constructed with government funding are accessible to people with disabilities. The proposal would have removed the requirement that recipients of government energy assistance design and build facilities that people with disabilities can actually use.

The agency used an expedited procedure called a "direct final rule," a process reserved for changes not expected to generate significant opposition, which allows for a shorter comment window than standard rulemaking.

More than 20,000 comments arrived. Disability rights organizations, individuals, civil rights coalitions, and state attorneys general documented in detail how the proposal would affect people with disabilities. The National Council on Disability formally advised the agency against proceeding.

The Department of Energy postponed the rule. The 60-day delay was directly attributed to the volume and substance of public comments. The rule's outcome remained unresolved, which means public participation continued to matter every step of the way.

4 million comments and a stronger internet rule

In 2014, the Federal Communications Commission proposed new rules for how internet service providers could manage network traffic. Critics worried the proposal would allow internet companies to create tiered service, with faster connections for websites that paid more and slower access for those that couldn't.

What happened next was unlike anything the FCC had seen before. Nearly 4 million people submitted public comments, the most the agency had ever received. The comments came from individuals, small businesses, nonprofits, libraries, schools, and civil liberties organizations, and the overwhelming majority called for stronger protections for an open internet.

The FCC responded with an approach more protective than its original proposal. In February 2015, it reclassified broadband internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, a stronger legal foundation than the agency had initially considered, and adopted rules prohibiting internet providers from blocking or throttling content or creating paid fast lanes.

Small farmers speak up and the FDA listens twice

In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration proposed the first-ever government produce safety standards under the Food Safety Modernization Act. The goal was to reduce contamination of fresh fruits and vegetables, but the rules were designed for large commercial operations, and small farmers quickly saw a problem.

Thousands of comments poured in from family farms, rural food producers, local food advocates, and state agricultural agencies. Their concern was specific and practical: applying the same requirements equally to a small family farm and a large commercial operation would be economically impossible for smaller growers. Many feared the rule would drive small farms out of business entirely.

The FDA's response was significant. Rather than simply proceeding to a final rule, the agency published a supplemental proposed rule in 2014, a second round of public notice and comment, specifically to address the concerns that had been raised. That second round gave affected communities another opportunity to weigh in.

The 2015 final rule incorporated meaningful protections for small farms, including different standards based on farm size and annual sales, and extended compliance timelines that gave smaller operations more time to meet the new requirements.