In a noteworthy decision, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that public-school students with disabilities can pursue discrimination lawsuits under the same standard of proof applied to other institutions facing disability discrimination claims. This decision departs from the more stringent standards previously upheld by some lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion of the Court, deemed the heightened test as lacking textual support, thereby providing a more accessible legal pathway for students with disabilities to challenge discriminatory practices.
The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, involved a Minnesota student, Ava Tharpe, whose condition necessitates receiving education later in the day due to her unique form of epilepsy. Her school district’s refusal to accommodate led to her receiving significantly less instructional time compared to her peers. Previous rulings required the family to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a standard unique to educational cases as identified in the Eighth Circuit’s 1982 Monahan v. State of Nebraska decision. However, this precedent has now been overturned, aligning schools with the broader requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which address “deliberate indifference.”
The case has been positioned by Ava’s attorneys as a significant moment for disability rights, emphasizing the potential life-altering consequences of educational discrimination. The school district countered by arguing that this matter was more about disagreement than outright discrimination and maintained that their actions did not show discriminatory intent by any legal standard.
This ruling effectively dismantles a doctrine that had been in place for four decades, ensuring that students with disabilities now have a comparable recourse as seen in other public sectors. Zoe Brennan-Krohn of the ACLU commented on the decision’s impact, stating, “This ruling is a critical step toward ensuring that all students with disabilities receive the support to which they are legally entitled.” Further details on the ruling can be found on JURIST – News.
Importantly, while the Court refrained from delving into broader issues concerning disability rights under these laws, separate opinions from Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh signaled potential inquiries into more foundational questions regarding discrimination intent in future deliberations. Meanwhile, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion emphasized the impact of neglect rather than intentional animosity in disability discrimination cases.