Disabled people have historically lacked legal protection and often faced discrimination in healthcare, reproductive rights, education, and more despite being the largest minority group in the United States. One of the most common ways that American disability activists have advocated for their rights is by challenging discriminatory behavior or regulations in court and advocating for policy change in local, state, and federal governments. As a result, understanding the relationships between legislation and the judicial processes by which American judges approach disability discrimination is crucial to protecting and expanding the rights of disabled Americans. This study analyzes five American disability rights cases from the last fifty years as well as two foundational pieces of federal legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I conducted this research as a member of the Embryo Project, where I wrote and peer-reviewed articles for the Embryo Project Encyclopedia, which is an online open-access resource for topics relating to reproduction, embryology, and development. In my articles, I summarize the litigation and holdings of each case with additional contextualization in science and society. The passage of the ADA represents a watershed moment after which the American judiciary observed the rights of the disabled as legislatively codified rather than only subject to interpretations of the Constitution. Since laws can be repealed far more easily than constitutional amendments, precedent from legislative interpretation is only as secure as the law on which it is based. Lawmakers must understand the need to craft legislation with reduced textual ambiguity to prevent undermining the original intent of the law. With the recent overturning of long-standing precedent and the composition of the Supreme Court as of 2023, disability rights are on fragile footing. Judicial behavior in response to disability legislation has historically narrowed the protections offered by federal statute and failed to bolster disability rights by refusing to base decisions on Constitutional protections.