US standard for proving discrimination affirmed
What's in the US. Supreme Court's holding in the case of A.J.T. v Osseo Area Schools?
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court held that when parents sue schools for discrimination under §504, the parents do not have to show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to prove their cases. The decision was published 12 June 2025; it is known as “A. J. T., by and through her parents, A. T., et al. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, et al.” There’s a link to the court’s opinion at the end of this post.
Readers may recall a post for 27 April 2025 here on Special Education Today entitled “A § 504 case at the US Supreme Court: Will a decision in AJT v Osseo Area Schools guarantee or gut disability rights in the US?” That post has an extensive description of the A.J.T. v Osseo case, so I shan’t repeat it here.
The simple version is that A. J. T., a child know as “Ava” who has a disability and needed special education, had an accommodation in her individualized education plan that allowed her to receive schooling during hours when she was less like to have seizures. When her schools did not provide the accommodation, Ava’s family sought relief through a series of legal proceedings. The case ultimately got to the Supreme Court because there was disagreement over what the plaintiffs (Ava and her parents) had to prove about the local education agency’s actions. Had the LEA acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment? The Supreme Court held that they did not have to meet that standard:
Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
There is a twist at the end of the decision. The court wrote,
The school district no longer defends Monahan’s asymmetric rule, and contends instead that bad faith or gross misjudgment is the correct standard of intent for all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, whether in or out of schools. This argument was not resolved below [in the lower courts], was not raised in the brief in opposition to certiorari, and is outside the question presented. The Court declines the invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented.
So, let’s see…is it is or is it ain’t? I guess we’ll have to monitor the activities of the courts to which the Supreme Court remanded the case. People with greater expertise than I have in these cases will surely help clarify. Indeed, Mitchell Yell—yes, right; he’s a contributor to SET—published a brief report over on SpedLawBlog about the decision: “Unanimous Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in AJT v. Osseo Area Schools.”
Other media sources are on the case, too:
Reporting for NPR on 12 June 2025, Nina Totenberg wrote “Unanimous Supreme Court makes it easier for sue schools in disability cases”
On The 74 Million for 12 June 2025, Beth Hawkins reported, “Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District: In a decisive ruling, the high court confirms that the Americans with Disabilities Act holds schools to the same standards as other institutions”
Writing for Education Week on 12 June 2025, Mark Walsh reported, “Supreme Court Decision Lets Students Sue Schools More Easily for Disability Bias: The justices ruled unanimously that students with disabilities need not meet a more stringent standard when suing under two federal laws”
On Reuters 12 June 2025, John Kruzel wrote, “US Supreme Court bolsters school disability protections”
Additional reports and updates to these are surely going to appear. Meanwhile, readers may want to download their own copy of the holding. A PDF is available for free from the Supreme Court’s Web site at this link.
Another great report on A.J.T., which address the concurring opinions, is: Mann, R (2025). Unanimous court rebuffs higher standard for discrimination claims by children with disabilities, SCOTUSblog,https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/unanimous-court-rebuffs-higher-standard-for-discrimination-claims-by-children-with-disabilities/
Mitch, there's more (no surprise?).
Over on Amicus, Slate's podcast about legal matters, Dalia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the AJT case in a supplement to their podcast for 14 June 2025. The supplement is called "Bonus: A Win for Disability Rights, Mostly." They cheer for the holding that individuals with disabilities do not have to show malicious intent by the state (schools in this case) to prove discrimination. After their huzzahs, however, they get to the reason for "mostly" in the title of their piece. Mr. Stern then examined the concurrence by Clarence Thomas (joined by Brett Kavanugh).
Mr. Stern said, "It’s an awful concurrence. It is horrible, and it is what we expect from Clarence Thomas. ... So Thomas writes, and this is par for the course for him, that he basically thinks all disability law is unconstitutional. He thinks that Congress does not have the power to compel states to provide these accommodations for disabled people, not just disabled school children, but all disabled people." Mr. then explained more about Justice Thomas's opinion and then launched into a critique of Justice Kavanaugh's joining Justice Thomas and the implications for the Supreme Court in having these two justices aligning.
I get from Mr. Stern's analysis that we might not have heard the last of the question about parents seeking damages for violations of their children's rights. Given that legal folks (and others) read those concurring opinions and sometimes find an idea that allows them to identify and carry forward a case that focuses on (if not caters to) a justice's objections, I suspect the Supremes might get another chance to whack this piñata.