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.
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/
Thanks, Mitch. That’s a great source, and I’ll have to monitor it!
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.