Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the family of Ava Tharpe, a teen with a rare form of epilepsy whose suburban Minneapolis district denied her request for a modified school day. The decision, A.J.T. vs. Osseo Area Schools, means K-12 students do not have to meet a higher standard of proof than others suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If the justices had agreed with the district's longstanding argument, children with disabilities would have had to prove their school system intentionally acted in bad faith in denying them in-school accommodations. In 'friend of the court' briefs, numerous advocacy groups had warned that holding special education students to a different — and extraordinarily strict — definition of discrimination would have made it virtually impossible for families to assert their rights.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The court agreed, saying everyone who files suit under the ADA should have to meet the same standard of 'deliberate indifference,' or disregard for an individual's need for accommodations.
'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import for A.J.T. and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,' ' Roberts wrote, citing language from a lower court decision. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.'
In a concurring opinion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson elaborated, citing examples of discrimination that, intent notwithstanding, must still be addressed.
'Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a dead person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff or the ballot designer.'
Related
'Today's decision is a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country,' said Roman Martinez, a lead attorney on the case. 'This outcome gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all.'
In a statement to The 74, a district spokesperson said the high court 'declined to decide what the particular intent standard is for such claims,' noting that 'the case will now return to the trial court for next steps consistent with the court's ruling.'
In 2015, when Ava was in fourth grade, her family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota. Because her severe form of epilepsy causes frequent seizures during the morning, she had been allowed to attend school in the afternoon and early evening. Initially, the Osseo district agreed to a modified schedule, but reneged after the family moved, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day.
The state administrative law judge who heard the family's initial complaint called the district's arguments 'pretextual,' saying it was more concerned with 'the need to safeguard the ordinary end-of-the-workday departure times for its faculty and staff' than with outside evaluators' assessments of Ava's needs.
As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the district had consistently argued Ava had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent — a standard that would have applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before oral arguments, Osseo widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools.
The April 28 hearing erupted in rare verbal fireworks when Justice Neil Gorsuch took exception to a statement by the district's attorney that lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, who sided with the family, were 'lying' when they said the district had changed its argument. Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' while Jackson questioned whether the district was saying the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities.
In their concurring opinion, Sotomayor and Jackson noted that when they wrote the act, lawmakers addressed the question at the heart of the case head-on: 'Congress was not naïve to the insidious nature of disability discrimination when it enacted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It understood full well that discrimination against those with disabilities derives principally from 'apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.' '
The decision comes at a time when disability protections have come under fire from the second Trump administration and a number of Republican governors. In October, motivated by new rules that said gender dysphoria could be considered a disability, 17 states sued the federal government. Gender dysphoria is the clinical term for distress caused when a person's gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.
That suit, Texas vs. Kennedy, originally sought to have Section 504, the portion of the ADA that outlaws in-school discrimination, declared unconstitutional. The states have since dropped that demand from the suit but are still asking courts to overturn rules prohibiting discrimination in a wide array of public settings.
Whether the states will continue to press the new, broader case in the face of Thursday's decision remains to be seen.
For their part, disability advocates were quick to celebrate. The district's position was 'flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination,' said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel for The Arc of the United States, which submitted a brief on the issues. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Louisiana Classroom Ten Commandments Requirement Blocked by Court
A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down Louisiana's requirement for displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Newsweek reached out to the office of Governor Jeff Landry via email on Saturday for comment. The ruling represents a decisive legal victory for advocacy groups challenging the state mandate on constitutional grounds. This constitutional challenge reflects broader national tensions over religious expression in public education, with the mandate previously receiving support from President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers. The ruling's implications extend beyond Louisiana, as Texas advances comparable legislation that affects nearly 6 million students in the nation's second-largest school system, while Arkansas faces parallel legal challenges as well. Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry enacted the classroom display requirement in June 2024, mandating poster-sized presentations of the Ten Commandments across all public-school facilities. The law was quickly challenged by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who filed a lawsuit arguing it violates First Amendment language that guarantees religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked a major win for civil liberties groups who said the mandate violates the separation of church and state. The decision upholds an order issued last November by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in Friday's ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents. Historical precedent shows the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, finding it had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Court held that displays in Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution, while simultaneously upholding a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior staff attorney Heather L. Weaver told the Associated Press: "This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education. With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith." Americans United for Separation of Church and State spokesperson Liz Hayes told the AP: "All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms." Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry wrote in a statement on Friday: "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws—serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms." Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Landry stated Friday that he supports the attorney general's plans to appeal. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article. Related Articles Mahmoud Khalil Blasts Trump After Release: 'They Chose The Wrong Person'Trump Admin Gives Update on Using Military to Support ICE in 3 StatesMahmoud Khalil Cannot Be Detained or Deported, Judge RulesLouisiana Father Charged With Murder After Toddler Dies in Hot Car 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
CNBC
12 hours ago
- CNBC
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. "I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more," she said. "And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something." Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. "This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens," said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. "We are throwing away money on this," he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the "weakest assault weapons ban in the country." "I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety," Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. "The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons," Ryan said. "This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all." Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case "in the next term or two."
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
"In sadness, I dissent": Sotomayor blasts conservative justices for upholding trans health care ban
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday. The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti lets stand a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law would still allow puberty blockers and other hormone care for cisgender minors, meaning someone assigned female at birth couldn't receive a prescription for testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could. The three families and doctor who challenged the Tennessee law said that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex. Tennessee argued that the law is based on age and medical purpose, not sex. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts left the issue to the states: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The decision sets a precedent for the 25 states that have bans on pediatric gender-affirming care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. Tennessee argued that the ban protects children from 'experimental' medical treatment, despite major U.S. medical and mental health organizations supporting gender-affirming care, saying it's backed by science and even medically necessary care that improves transgender youth's health and well-being.'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, said: 'There aren't words strong enough to describe how shameful, cruel, and morally corrupt this ruling is. Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death.' 'The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,' Hack said. The Trump administration is also eliminating the option for LGBTQ+ individuals who call the 988 Suicide Hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ+ mental health. Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender legislator elected in her state, addressed the ruling and 988 changes on Bluesky: 'These bastards want us all dead.'
