Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District
If the justices had agreed with the district's longstanding argument, children with disabilities would have had to prove their school system intentionally acted in bad faith in denying them in-school accommodations. In 'friend of the court' briefs, numerous advocacy groups had warned that holding special education students to a different — and extraordinarily strict — definition of discrimination would have made it virtually impossible for families to assert their rights.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The court agreed, saying everyone who files suit under the ADA should have to meet the same standard of 'deliberate indifference,' or disregard for an individual's need for accommodations.
'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import for A.J.T. and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,' ' Roberts wrote, citing language from a lower court decision. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.'
In a concurring opinion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson elaborated, citing examples of discrimination that, intent notwithstanding, must still be addressed.
'Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a dead person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff or the ballot designer.'
Related
'Today's decision is a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country,' said Roman Martinez, a lead attorney on the case. 'This outcome gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all.'
In a statement to The 74, a district spokesperson said the high court 'declined to decide what the particular intent standard is for such claims,' noting that 'the case will now return to the trial court for next steps consistent with the court's ruling.'
In 2015, when Ava was in fourth grade, her family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota. Because her severe form of epilepsy causes frequent seizures during the morning, she had been allowed to attend school in the afternoon and early evening. Initially, the Osseo district agreed to a modified schedule, but reneged after the family moved, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day.
The state administrative law judge who heard the family's initial complaint called the district's arguments 'pretextual,' saying it was more concerned with 'the need to safeguard the ordinary end-of-the-workday departure times for its faculty and staff' than with outside evaluators' assessments of Ava's needs.
As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the district had consistently argued Ava had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent — a standard that would have applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before oral arguments, Osseo widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools.
The April 28 hearing erupted in rare verbal fireworks when Justice Neil Gorsuch took exception to a statement by the district's attorney that lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, who sided with the family, were 'lying' when they said the district had changed its argument. Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' while Jackson questioned whether the district was saying the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities.
In their concurring opinion, Sotomayor and Jackson noted that when they wrote the act, lawmakers addressed the question at the heart of the case head-on: 'Congress was not naïve to the insidious nature of disability discrimination when it enacted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It understood full well that discrimination against those with disabilities derives principally from 'apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.' '
The decision comes at a time when disability protections have come under fire from the second Trump administration and a number of Republican governors. In October, motivated by new rules that said gender dysphoria could be considered a disability, 17 states sued the federal government. Gender dysphoria is the clinical term for distress caused when a person's gender does not match their sex assigned at birth.
That suit, Texas vs. Kennedy, originally sought to have Section 504, the portion of the ADA that outlaws in-school discrimination, declared unconstitutional. The states have since dropped that demand from the suit but are still asking courts to overturn rules prohibiting discrimination in a wide array of public settings.
Whether the states will continue to press the new, broader case in the face of Thursday's decision remains to be seen.
For their part, disability advocates were quick to celebrate. The district's position was 'flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination,' said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel for The Arc of the United States, which submitted a brief on the issues. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
100 years after the Scopes trial, Americans are still divided over what kids should learn
A century ago, a Tennessee science teacher's fight to teach evolution ignited national controversy. But battles over school curricula still rage. In 1925, an American teacher's fight to educate his high school students about evolution thrust a small-town controversy into the national spotlight. The case, now commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, began when John Thomas Scopes taught Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in his classroom in Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was charged under a state law that made it illegal to teach any doctrine that denied the creation of man as told in the Bible. The case ultimately reached the Tennessee Supreme Court, which upheld the law but acquitted Scopes on a technicality. In the century since, debates over what kids should learn in taxpayer-supported schools – and the role parents should play in shaping those decisions – have only intensified. This summer, those fights reached another crescendo when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that religious parents can opt their public-school children out of reading books with LGBTQ+ themes. But the curriculum wars have been intensifying for decades. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement forced schools to start to reckon with decades of racist teachings and practices. The 1990s brought passionate fights over classroom standards. With the 2000s, came major tech innovations, from iPhones to YouTube, that raised new questions about whether those technologies had a place in the classroom. Then came the coronavirus pandemic. Many parents tried, and failed, to keep their kids from falling behind as schools closed. Meanwhile, anger toward the educational establishment among conservative parents grew into a full-fledged movement to exert more parental control in classrooms. "The longer classrooms remained closed, the more disenfranchised parents felt," said Sarah Parshall Perry, the vice president of the conservative group Defending Education and a former Education Department attorney in the first Trump administration. "The parental right does not end at the schoolhouse door," she said. One hundred years after the Scopes trial, the concept of parental rights continues to fuel curriculum battles – from book bans to LGBTQ+ censorship – in school boards and state legislatures nationwide. Teaching about race across America The debate over how American history, and its history with race in particular, should be taught in public schools intensified in a new way with the Scopes trial, said Adam Laats, a professor at Binghamton University who studies historical battles over education culture. The trial was the beginning of a "100-year war over controlling public schools," he said. "It's not just a question of evolutionary teaching," he said. "It's much bigger than that." Fast forward to 2020, when another national spotlight was cast on racial inequities following the high-profile killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. In Taylor's hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, the local school superintendent, Marty Pollio, recalled being asked by state politicians for details regarding his district's racial equity policy, which had been in place for years before her killing. "We were being praised," Pollio said. But a year later, a nearly identical group of politicians questioned him over the alleged teaching of critical race theory in his schools. Critical race theory, or CRT, is a framework of legal analysis based on the idea that systemic racism is deeply embedded within American society. It is typically taught in U.S. law schools and colleges, not K-12 schools. On the national stage, those criticisms about CRT have widened in recent years into broader concerns among Republicans about the role of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs in schools. DEI, a term that isn't always clearly defined, broadly refers to policies or programs that schools implement to prevent discrimination and create welcoming environments. In April, President Donald Trump's administration warned school districts that they could risk losing federal funding if they don't get rid of their DEI programs. Though that threat has been halted by a court battle, Pollio said it was an indication that much of the progress he felt was happening in 2020 is long gone. "I was really proud of the momentum that was happening in education at that time," he said. "But I'm really disappointed in how it's been abandoned at this point." Book bans on the rise Backed by conservative organizations like Moms for Liberty, efforts to control what books are on the shelves of classrooms and school libraries have also accelerated since the pandemic. Free speech advocacy group PEN America said over 10,000 books were banned in public schools in the 2023-24 school year, nearly tripling the previous year's number. The most common themes in the removed books include race, sexuality and gender identity, along with topics involving struggles with substance abuse, suicide, depression and other mental health issues, according to PEN America. In Tennessee, a state law passed in 2023 heightened tensions over what books are appropriate for young children. In 2024, at least 1,155 unique titles were pulled from the shelves or heavily age-restricted in Tennessee's public schools, according to The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. State funds for private and religious schools Another frontier in the modern-day battle over public schooling has less to do with what should be taught in the classroom, and more to do with another controversial question: Which schools should get taxpayer money? An increasing number of states are adopting programs that give families taxpayer-funded vouchers to offset private K-12 school tuition – including at religious schools. While vouchers may not be a direct part of deciding what's taught in public schools, they do reflect the larger conversation around how states handle public education. A major development in the debate on state-funded education is playing out in Oklahoma. In April, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to a bid from the state's charter school board to create the first religious charter school in the U.S. But the court ultimately deadlocked 4-4 in the case, meaning the religious charter school would remain blocked. Greenlighting the school would have marked a major expansion of the use of taxpayer money for religious education. LGBTQ+ inclusion Legislatures in red states have pushed in recent years to censor teaching about LGBTQ+ history and culture in classrooms. It comes in the context of a broader movement in the U.S. to curb the rights of queer and transgender people. That campaign largely started in 2022 in Florida, where the Parental Rights in Education Act, a controversial measure dubbed by critics as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, was passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. The law prohibited classroom instruction on topics relating to sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade. A year later, the Florida state education board expanded the ban through 12th grade. The law's initial ambiguity created a "chilling effect" that inspired conservative politicians in states across the country to pursue similarly written measures, said Brian Dittmeier, the director of public policy at GLSEN, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. "The vagueness of some of these policies is the point," he said. Since 2022, 11 states have adopted laws restricting discussions about LGBTQ+ people or issues in school curricula, according to a 2024 tally from the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank. A court settlement eventually watered down the impact of Florida's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law by allowing teachers and students to still discuss topics relating to the LGBTQ+ community. For advocates like Quinn Diaz, a public policy associate at the LGBTQ+ rights group Equality Florida, the settlement was a big deal. It showed – much like the Scopes trial, Diaz said – how legal fights can ultimately help protect students and teachers. "The settlement remains a symbol of hope," they said. Three years, almost to the day, after the so-called "Don't Say Gay" law took effect, the pendulum swung in the other direction. The Supreme Court allowed parents nationwide to prevent their kids from reading LGBTQ+ books in school.
2 days ago
Muslim inmate who won US Supreme Court beard case claims retaliatory transfer by Arkansas officials
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A Muslim inmate who won a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding his right to grow a beard for religious reasons said in a lawsuit that Arkansas officials transferred him to a federal prison in West Virginia in retaliation for several other lawsuits he has filed. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed the lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, claiming the transfer violated his constitutional rights. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Holt could maintain a half-inch beard because Arkansas prison officials could not substantiate claims that the beard posed a security risk. The lawsuit filed Thursday argues his transfer was an effort to disrupt his advocacy on behalf of himself and other inmates. 'Mr. Muhammad's history of meritorious litigation showcases the ability of the legal system to provide justice to all, including prisoners,' the lawsuit said. 'The Court should not tolerate the (state's) retaliatory transfer aimed at suppressing Mr. Muhammad's meritorious litigation and legal work.' A spokesperson for the Department of Corrections declined to comment on the lawsuit. Jeff LeMaster, a spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin, said Griffin's office was reviewing the lawsuit and would 'vigorously' defend the state. Holt has six active lawsuits against the Arkansas Department of Corrections, according to the complaint. The lawsuit accuses the head of the division of correction of unilaterally pursuing Holt's transfer to a federal facility after the idea was raised in a mediation session in one of his lawsuits. Since being moved to the West Virginia facility, the ACLU said, Holt has been denied access to basic hygiene, religious services and contact with his lawyers. The lawsuit said he also has lost access to ongoing casework and legal documents that support his cases. The lawsuit said that since Holt is still a state inmate, Arkansas has the power to order his return to a state facility. 'This ordeal has made Mr. Muhammad loathe to ever trust the mediation process or participate in a mediation with the ADC ( or any other government actor) again,' the lawsuit said. In his U.S. Supreme Court case, Holt claimed that he has a right to grow a beard under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights. He had the support of then-President Barack Obama's administration, religious groups and atheists alike. Holt is serving a life sentence for a brutal assault on his girlfriend and was being held at a maximum-security prison 26 miles (43 kilometers) southeast of Little Rock. His case first came to the Supreme Court's attention when he filed a handwritten plea to the court asking it to block enforcement of Arkansas' no-beard rule.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
A reason for hope, at a time of deep division
As we approach America's 250th birthday, our country faces complex challenges. A 2025 Marist survey found that Americans are concerned — 77 percent say the issues that divide us are a serious threat to the future of our democracy. Yet our common humanity is much deeper and more powerful than our differences. It's important to recognize that, as a nation, we are stronger because we are able to express and debate different points of view respectfully. As the executive directors of two presidential centers — one Republican, one Democratic — we have found inspiration through hundreds of leaders who have come together, across partisan lines, to learn from each other and make a difference in their communities. Ten years ago, Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush teamed up with the LBJ Foundation to create the Presidential Leadership Scholars — a program aimed at developing leaders who work with, not against, those with different perspectives and beliefs to make a positive, lasting impact in the United States and around the world. Throughout the program, scholars encounter bold examples of presidential collaboration: President Johnson uniting an unlikely coalition to pass landmark civil rights legislation. President George H.W. Bush bringing together both parties to end discrimination through the Americans with Disabilities Act. President Clinton working across the aisle to balance the budget for the first time in a generation — reducing the national debt and leaving the country with a record surplus. President George W. Bush rallying bipartisan support for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has saved more than 26 million lives. These examples give scholars insights into how, even amidst division and disagreement, we can work together to create something better. A decade later, the program has nearly 600 alumni. While they are of different political affiliations, work across different sectors, and are from various parts of the country, these leaders share a common trait: their desire to work across divides to make positive change. The most critical piece of this program is a charge for these leaders to develop personal leadership projects that address a challenge and make a difference in their communities. Jon Bennion, a 2018 alum of the scholars program, built a program that brings Republicans and Democrats from the Montana state Legislature together for a literal 'sausage-making' event — creating an opportunity to build trust and relationships that can help elected leaders reach consensus on divisive issues. Steve Lopez, a 2023 Scholar, discovered the shortage of mechanics was threatening Dallas Fire-Rescue's ability to quickly respond to emergency situations. Inspired by a program started by a fellow Scholar, Lopez led an overhaul of the mechanic recruitment and training process and is building a school-to-work pipeline to bring students into the field. From last year's class of scholars, Keely Cat-Wells developed a talent acquisition and learning platform for disabled professionals. Cat-Wells became disabled at age 17, and through her new platform, she has already supported more than 3,000 disabled people and connected employers with a highly qualified and often-overlooked talent pool. President Johnson once said, 'There are no problems we cannot solve together, and very few that we can solve by ourselves.' At a time of great division, the Presidential Leadership Scholars program gives us hope and inspiration that our common humanity can prevail, and the next generation can come together to solve problems in ways that will bring us together, not tear us apart. David J. Kramer is executive director of the George W. Bush Institute and Stephanie S. Streett is executive director of the Clinton Foundation.
