Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.
Scripps News
WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages.
Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims.
'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision.
But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction.
And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong.
In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.'
Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong.
'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion.
More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools
How the case got to the Supreme Court
The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning.
Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction.
But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours.
Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities.
That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims.
The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination.
What the Supreme Court decided
The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases.
'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights.
But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.'
'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
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
Pope Leo XIV says there should be no tolerance for abuse of any kind in Catholic Church
LIMA, Peru — Pope Leo XIV has said there should be no tolerance in the Catholic Church for any type of abuse — sexual, spiritual or abuse of authority — and called for 'transparent processes' to create a culture of prevention across the church. Leo made his first public comments about the clergy sex abuse scandal in a written message to a Peruvian journalist who documented a particularly egregious case of abuse and financial corruption in a Peruvian-based Catholic movement, the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae. The message was read out loud on Friday night in Lima during a performance of a play based on the Sodalitium scandal and the work of the journalist, Paola Ugaz. 'It is urgent to root in the whole church a culture of prevention that does not tolerate any form of abuse – neither of power or authority, nor abuse of conscience, spiritual or sexual abuse,' Leo said in the message. 'This culture will only be authentic if it is born of active vigilance, of transparent processes and sincere listening to those who have been hurt. For this, we need journalists.' Leo is well aware of the Sodalitium scandal, since he spent two decades as a missionary priest and bishop in Peru, where the group was founded in 1971. The then-Bishop Robert Prevost was responsible for listening to the Sodalitium's victims as the Peruvian bishops' point-person for abuse victims and helped some reach financial settlements with the organization. After Pope Francis brought him to the Vatican in 2023, Prevost helped dismantle the group entirely by overseeing the resignation of a powerful Sodalitium bishop. The Sodalitium was officially suppressed earlier this year, right before Francis died. Now as pope, Leo has to oversee the dismantling of the Soldalitium and its sizeable assets. The Vatican envoy on the ground handling the job, Monsignor Jordi Bertomeu, read out Leo's message on Friday night, appearing alongside Ugaz on stage. In the message, Leo also praised journalists for their courage in holding the powerful to account, demanded public authorities protect them and said a free press is an 'common good that cannot be renounced.' Ugaz and a Sodalitium victim, Pedro Salinas, have faced years of criminal and civil litigation from Sodalitium and its supporters for their investigative reporting into the group's twisted practices and financial misconduct, and they have praised Leo for his handling of the case. The abuse scandal is one of the thorniest dossiers facing Leo, especially given demands from survivors that he go even farther than Francis in applying a zero-tolerance for abuse across the church, including for abusers whose victims were adults.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Louisiana Classroom Ten Commandments Requirement Blocked by Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. 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. Why It Matters 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. What To Know 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. A Ten Commandments sculpture is on display in front of city hall June 27, 2001, in Grand Junction, Colorado. A Ten Commandments sculpture is on display in front of city hall June 27, 2001, in Grand Junction, People Are Saying 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." What Happens Next? 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.
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
NC governor vetoes permit-less concealed carry, ICE cooperation
1 of 2 | Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes an arrest in Californa. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein voted legislation that would have required law enforcement to coordinate operations with immigration officers. Photo by ICE/Flickr June 21 (UPI) -- North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed a bill to require state law enforcement to work more closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in addition to another that would allow permit-less concealed carry of firearms. The Democratic governor on Friday announced vetoes of the legislation, which had been approved by both legislative chambers. Stein said the state is already stretched to assist federal officers. "My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States," Stein said. "Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. He noted the federeal Fourth Circuit "is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation." Stein said he also wants offenders to be held accountable. "Let me be clear, anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status." He said he supports the bills' efforts to require sheriffs to contact federal immigration authorities about people in their custody charged with dangerous crimes, including sexual battery, armed robbery, arson, assault on public officials and court personnel. The vetoes were supported by Guilford County Sheriff Danny Rogers, Forsyth County Sheriff Bobby Kimbrough and Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden. Republicans blasted the decision by the governor, who was elected in November. "Gov. Stein proved where his allegiances are," state Senate Leader Phil Berger posted on X. "He'd rather prioritize his far-left donors and their dangerous open-border policies over the citizens of North Carolina who are desperately pleading for us to put an end to the illegal immigration crisis. I look forward to the Senate overriding his veto." Stein also vetoed a bill that would have allowed permitless concealed carry in North Carolina. "This bill makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership," Stein said. "The bill eliminates training requirements associated with concealed carry permits and reduces the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old. "We can and should protect the right to bear arms without recklessly endangering law enforcement officers and our people." Berger criticized the veto of this bill. "Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," the Senate leader said. "It's past time for us to join the majority of states that recognize Constitutional Carry. I look forward to the Senate overriding Gov. Stein's veto." To override a veto, three-fifths of the House and Senate must approve the bills. In the latest election, Democrats broke the Republican supermajority in the House by gaining one seat. The GOP has a one-vote supermajority in the Senate.
