Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a teenage girl and her parents who are attempting to sue the girl's school district for alleged disability discrimination. The decision, which did not rule on the merits of the case, is similar to another recent unanimous ruling finding that courts cannot require different discrimination cases to meet different standards of proof to receive a favorable judgment.
The case revolves around a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy that severely impacts her physical and cognitive abilities. The girl, identified as "A. J. T." in court documents, has so many seizures each morning that she is unable to attend school before noon. According to her family's suit, the girl received additional evening instruction in her first school district. However, when the family moved to Minnesota, the girl's new school district refused to provide similar accommodations. Instead, she ended up only having a 4.25-hour school day, as opposed to the regular 6.5-hour school day other students received. When the district suggested cutting back her instructional time further, the family sued, claiming that the Minnesota school district's refusal to provide A. J. T. with enough instructional time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.
However, two lower courts ruled against the family. The 8th Circuit ruled that simply failing to provide A. J. T. a reasonable accommodation wasn't enough to prove illegal discrimination. Rather, because the family was suing a school, they would be subject to a higher standard than plaintiffs suing other institutions. The family was told they had to prove that the school's behavior rose to the level of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment."
The Supreme Court disagreed. In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disability discrimination "claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," adding that "Nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reiterated how nonsensical the 8th Circuit's higher standard for educational disability discrimination claims was, noting that some of the most obvious forms of disability discrimination do not involve bad faith or misjudgment against the disabled.
"Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space; the lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a deaf 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," she wrote. "The statutes' plain text thus reaches cases involving a failure to accommodate, even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present."
Last week, the Court reached a similar decision, ruling in favor of a straight woman who wanted to sue her employer for sexual orientation–based discrimination but faced a heightened standard of proof because she was a "majority group" plaintiff. In that case, the Court also unanimously ruled that forcing some plaintiffs to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination was unconstitutional and unsupported by federal antidiscrimination law.
The post Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Frederick Douglass becomes the first Black candidate nominated for president
Today is Monday, June 23, the 174th day of 2025. There are 191 days left in the year. Today in history: On June 23, 1888, abolitionist Frederick Douglass received one vote from the Kentucky delegation at the Republican convention in Chicago, making him the first Black candidate to have his name placed in nomination for U.S. president. Vintage Chicago Tribune: How Chicago became the go-to city for political conventionsAlso on this date: In 1931, aviators Wiley Post and Harold Gatty took off from Roosevelt Field in New York on an around-the-world flight that lasted eight days and 15 hours. In 1947, the Senate joined the House in overriding President Harry S. Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Act, designed to limit the power of organized labor. In 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser was elected president of Egypt. In 1969, Warren E. Burger was sworn in as chief justice of the United States by his predecessor, Earl Warren. In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Education Amendments of 1972, including Title IX, which barred discrimination on the basis of sex for 'any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.' In 1985, all 329 people on an Air India Boeing 747 were killed when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near Ireland after a bomb planted by Sikh separatists exploded onboard. In 1992, mob boss John Gotti was sentenced to life after being found guilty of murder, racketeering and other charges. (Gotti would die in prison in 2002.) In 2016, Britain voted to leave the European Union after a bitterly divisive referendum campaign, toppling Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the drive to remain in the bloc. In 2020, the Louisville police department fired an officer involved in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor more than three months earlier, saying Brett Hankison showed 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' when he fired 10 rounds into her apartment. In 2022, in a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Today's Birthdays: Author Richard Bach is 89. Computer scientist Vint Cerf is 82. Actor Bryan Brown is 78. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is 77. Musician Glenn Danzig is 70. Former 'American Idol' judge Randy Jackson is 69. Actor Frances McDormand is 68. Golf Hall of Famer Colin Montgomerie is 62. Actor Selma Blair is 53. French soccer manager and former player Zinedine Zidane is 53. Actor Joel Edgerton is 51. Singer-songwriter Jason Mraz is 48. Rapper Memphis Bleek is 47. Football Hall of Famer LaDainian Tomlinson is 46. Actor Melissa Rauch ('The Big Bang Theory') is 45.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government files appeal after Kilmar Abrego Garcia ordered released by federal judge
The government on Sunday appealed a federal judge's order to release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending trial on human smuggling charges, another chapter in the saga of the Maryland father who had been erroneously deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration admitted having mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia in March, and the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. Upon his return this month, though, Abrego Garcia was hit with federal charges of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal immigrants for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants for monetary gain. He pleaded not guilty. 'Abrego, like every person arrested on federal criminal charges, is entitled to a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial,' U.S. Magistrate Barbara D. Holmes of the Middle District of Tennessee wrote in her opinion Sunday. 'The Court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed.' The government quickly filed a request to stay the order and keep Abrego Garcia in custody, a filing that made it clear it would again subject him to deportation proceedings. The government argued that a stay, or pause, would allow the court 'to conduct meaningful review' of custody ahead of the judge's ruling on a separate court filing. 'He will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance,' Justice Department lawyers said in request for a stay Sunday. In concluding Abrego Garcia should be released pending trial, with certain conditions, Holmes faulted the government for its language surrounding the case and indicated he has been so far denied ordinary due process that might come to any defendant. She noted that government lawyers have used the terms "human smuggling" and "human trafficking" interchangeably, though the former refers to helping someone willfully enter a country, while the latter refers to bringing someone to a country against their will. She also noted that the government accused Abrego Garcia of being "involved" in transporting a minor as part of the alleged smuggling — without solid and specific evidence of such. Holmes set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss terms of Abrego Garcia's release and ordered federal authorities to produce him for the event. She held out little hope that Abrego Garcia would actually be free, however, noting that immigration authorities were likely to detain him upon release because he is alleged to be in the United States without permission. "Either Abrego will remain in the custody of the Attorney General or her designee pending trial if detained under the Bail Reform Act or he will likely remain in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') custody subject to anticipated removal proceedings that are outside the jurisdiction of this Court," she wrote in her decision. "That suggests the Court's determination of the detention issues is little more than an academic exercise," Holmes said. This article was originally published on
USA Today
11 hours ago
- USA Today
Judge denies government attempt to keep Abrego Garcia in detention; hearing set on release
A federal judge in Tennessee has ruled that a Salvadoran migrant at the heart of the debate over President Donald Trump's border security policies must be released from jail while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled in Nashville June 22 that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, cannot remain in detention, denying the federal government's request. The judge set a June 25 hearing in Nashville to determine the conditions of Abrego Garcia's release. Abrego Garcia was thrust into the national spotlight when the Trump administration mistakenly deported him to El Salvador in March in violation of a court order. Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three who had lived in Maryland for a decade before he was deported, has pleaded not guilty to charges he transported undocumented immigrants for financial gain. Prosecutors had argued that Abrego Garcia is a member of the violent gang MS-13 and could flee or intimidate other witnesses if he is released while awaiting trial. Abrego Garcia denies he is a member of the gang and had contended that the charges don't justify holding him in jail. Abrego Garcia's deportation in March turned him into a key player in the debate over Trump's hardline immigration policy. Government lawyers acknowledged in court records that he had been erroneously deported – an 'administrative error' was the official explanation – even though an immigration judge's court order had barred his deportation back to native land. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the administration to facilitate his return. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling, but officials resisted bringing him back until he was indicted in May. The human smuggling charges are tied to a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022. Police say Abrego Garcia was driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine other passengers when he was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 40 about 80 miles east of Nashville. Police questioned Abrego Garcia and his passengers but let them go without filing any charges. A federal grand jury in Nashville indicted Abrego Garcia on the human smuggling charges on May 21 while he was still being held in a prison in El Salvador. The indictment alleges that, from 2016 through 2025, Abrego Garcia and other unnamed people conspired to bring undocumented migrants into the United States from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere, passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas. Prosecutors say Abrego Garcia's role in the conspiracy was typically transporting people once they were within the United States, typically picking them up in the Houston area. If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each person transported. Prosecutors allege he made more than 100 trips. Following his indictment, the Trump administration flew Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face the charges even though it had insisted for weeks that it had no authority to bring him back. Follow Michael Collins on X @mcollinsNEWS.
