On a recent day at the US Supreme Court, what would typically be considered a standard legal discourse quickly escalated into a charged exchange between justices and advocate Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly. The hearing was focused on when school districts may be held liable under federal disability laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, for discrimination against disabled students.
- The already tense environment peaked when Blatt accused her opponents of “lying” about her position while representing the Osseo Public School District in Minnesota, a move that stirred discomfort among the justices.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch, visibly perturbed, admonished Blatt to “be more careful with your words,” with his voice resonating louder than usual in the courtroom.
- In response, Blatt defended her stance by suggesting that her opponents had misrepresented her argument, adding fuel to an already volatile discourse.
Blatt later withdrew her pointed remark, a rare move in the restrained setting of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, often characterized by decorum and formality. Her uncharacteristic outburst reflected her long-standing contentious relationship with Gorsuch, having tangled with him in past hearings. Observers noted the heightened tension, with Raffi Melkonian of Wright Close & Barger describing the exchange as disquieting.
The case involves a student with a rare form of epilepsy who is suing the Osseo Public School District. The claimants argue that a heightened burden of proof—requiring proof of “bad faith” rather than just “deliberate indifference”—should not apply to educational contexts alone. Instead, Latham & Watkins’ Roman Martinez and the Justice Department, siding with the parents, argue for consistent standards across all contexts.
The justices seem disinclined to make a sweeping judgment encompassing all disability claims, suggesting that broader implications of such standards were not sufficiently addressed in prior filings. Justice Amy Coney Barrett regarded the broader application as revolutionary, stating it would prompt a “sea change” in how disability cases are understood and adjudicated.
Given the intricate nature of the case, the justices expressed reluctance to legislate broadly from the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the current debate stretched beyond the court’s current purview.
The court is hearing the dispute in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, and while clarity remains desired, some justices underscored the importance of targeted resolutions to prevent legal confusion in lower courts and among litigants lacking top-tier legal representation.