Disabled child's fight for fair treatment could help others - or raise bar for discrimination claims
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court rejects broader disability review for veterans
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Veterans Court does not have to reexamine all evidence when reviewing disability benefits denials.
unbranded - Newsworthy
A student with a rare form of epilepsy said her school failed to accommodate her need for different instructional hours.
The student won her case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act but was blocked from suing for damages under two other federal laws.
School officials across the country and advocates for students with disabilities are closely following what standard the Supreme Court will set for such suits.
WASHINGTON − When a Minnesota family took their fight for fair treatment for their disabled daughter to the Supreme Court, they hoped the justices would make it easier for them to hold their school district accountable.
Many lower courts use a tougher standard for discrimination suits related to education than for other allegations pursued through the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gina and Aaron Tharpe want the Supreme Court stop that.
But the district is defending itself in a way that threatens to raise the bar for all victims of disability discrimination, they say.
Lawyers for the Tharpes told the court the Osseo Area School District is pursuing 'a sweeping argument threatening to eviscerate protections for every American who endures disability discrimination – and quite possibly other kinds of discrimination too.'
"No court has ever embraced anything close to the District's new rule," they wrote.
The school district's attorneys say the standard for all claims should be whether there was intentional discrimination.
Otherwise, any negligent or even good-faith failure to give a student with special needs an appropriate education could expose public schools to 'potentially crushing liability,' they told the Supreme Court.
The justices on April 28 will hear that argument.
Closely watched by disability rights groups
The case is a being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families.
But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits for damages easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources.
Litigation will also shrink those resources, lawyers for a national association of school superintendents and other educational groups told the Supreme Court in urging the justices to 'proceed with caution.'
More: Justice Department asks Supreme Court to rule narrowly on whether the ADA protects retirees
Morning seizures prevented a typical school schedule
The dispute started when the Tharpes moved in 2015 to a Twins City suburb from Tennessee where they said Ava's needs had been accommodated.
Ava has severe cognitive impairment and a rare form of epilepsy. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. Ava's Tennessee school shifted her school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home.
But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what non-disabled students received.
And as Ava prepared to enter middle school, that time was going to shrink further.
The Tharpes then went to court.
Ava wins IDEA claim but blocked from other suits
An administrative law judge said the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs but a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
But while a federal judge backed that decision, the judge said the Tharpes couldn't also use the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and an injunction to permanently set the hours of instruction.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 decision from that circuit – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities.
The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said.
`Hundreds' of other court cases have applied tougher standard
Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to Tharpes' attorneys.
Those courts are unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases outside the school setting, their attorneys argue.
That position is backed by the Justice Department.
School says it made good-faith effort to help Ava
Attorneys for the school district counter that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination, which is not what happened here. They also say they did not show 'deliberate indifference.'
Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while 'effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities.'
Like many of the nation's 19,000 school districts, they argue, Osseo Area Schools regularly face budget shortfalls and don't have enough staff.
Sometimes a district's best efforts won't be enough, but Congress didn't intend to expose public schools to monetary damages and federal court oversight when good-faith efforts fail to satisfy everyone, they told the Supreme Court.
More: Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims
Advocates say more help is needed for students with disabilities
But advocates for children with disabilities say the remedies available under the IDEA aren't always enough.
For example, a deaf student who did not graduate from high school until his mid-twenties in part because his school assigned him a classroom aide who did not know sign language should be able to sue for diminished future job opportunities and wages, they argue.
A Michigan family should be able to recover lost wages and medical expenses because their son's mental health deteriorated after his school failed to assist him with his schoolwork following a month-long, illness-related absence, they said.
'Without these remedies,' they told the court, 'school children subjected to discrimination would be left without full redress for the harms inflicted on them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Did the president drop an f-bomb? Yes, and Democrats are doing it too
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who started in politics as a young legislative aide and is now the senior Democrat in Florida's congressional delegation, has for years calibrated her statements, carefully choosing her words to communicate exactly the message she intends. Recently, speaking at the Broward Democratic Party's annual fundraising dinner, she used blunt - shocking to some - language to convey the threat she said was emanating from President Donald Trump's policies. "F-," she said. More than once. Wasserman Schulz declared that Democrats would "fight to our last breath, and we'll go to the f-ing mat." There has been a clear coarsening of political language: Words that once were widely seen as off-limits, other than behind closed doors or in small groups, are now more common - an extra tool to convey anger and frustration. At another point in the Broward fundraising dinner, Wasserman Schultz decried what she said Trump and Republicans are doing. She asked the audience of 300, "Are we going to let them do that, Broward County?" "No," people in the audience responded. To which the congresswoman replied with an emphatic "f- no!" "This has been building up in me for a long time. So forgive me," she added. Wasserman Schultz later explained the word wasn't in her prepared remarks but said the gravity of the threat the nation is facing in 2025 warranted an expression that once would have been stunning in a public setting. Trump There's no more prominent public user of the f-word and others once widely seen as off-limits than the president. Most recently, on June 24 he was expressing his displeasure with Iran and Israel. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f- they're doing. Do you understand that?" His use of the word in regard to Iran and Israel - speaking on the lawn of the White House - attracted massive attention, but he's no stranger to the public use of four-letter words. "More than any other president, Trump has been known to use coarse language in speeches and other public appearances. But even for him, this on-camera utterance of the f-word was new. American presidents have typically refrained from using it publicly, even when angry or frustrated," NPR reported. Just before last year's election, the New York Times reported that a computer search found he had used curses at least 140 times in public last year, not counting words such as "damn" and "hell" that are much tamer to many people. A review of Trump's speech at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference found he used epithets 44 times, the Times reported. Perhaps the most famous previous use of the f-word came from Joe Biden, then the vice president, who told President Barack Obama that his 2010 signing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, into law was "a big f-ing deal." One big difference: Biden whispered it to Obama and meant it to be private, but it was picked up on an open mic. Critics at the time suggested it was an example of Biden's tendency toward gaffes; years later some supporters were more positive about what they called the BFD moment. Democrats join After 10 years of Trump dominating and altering the nation's political discourse, Democrats' language is now changing. "In some ways the Democrats have been slower, particularly in the Trump era, to adopt the attention-gaining messaging that Donald Trump has really leaned into," said Joshua Scacco, an association professor of communication at the University of South Florida. "It does seem like the Trump era is catching up to Democrats in terms of how they're responding, in terms of how they're adapting their own messaging." Scacco, who specializes in political communication and media content, is also founder and director of the university's Center for Sustainable Democracy. At a Florida Democratic Party dinner gala, which fell between Wasserman Schultz's and Trump's use of the f-word, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz was delivering remarks to an audience of 800. The Broward-Palm Beach County congressman described what would happen when lawmakers returned to Washington to take up the measure the Republican majority passed on July 3, the legislation named "Big Beautiful Bill" at Trump's behest. "They're going to try to pass the big beautiful bulls- of a bill," Moskowitz said. Wasserman Schultz has regularly used the term "DOGEbags" to describe the people dispatched under the Trump presidency to fan out through federal agencies as part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency effort formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk to eliminate programs and slash spending. On Monday, Kristi Noem, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and former Republican governor of South Dakota, said she was looking forward to a visit with Trump the next day to the detention center for illegal immigrants pending deportation that Florida has established in the Everglades. In an official statement attributed to Noem and distributed by the agency, she said the detention center would allow the government to lock up "some of the worst scumbags" in the country. Divergent reactions The responses to use of one of the terms that still can't be printed or aired in most mainstream news outlets often depends on the affiliation of the person who uttered the word. After Trump used the word, his firmness and resolve was heralded by a host on Fox, the favored cable news outlet for Republicans. A "very frustrated" president used "salty language," she said. Minutes later, the same Fox host professed outrage at a Democrat's use of the term. She said she was "repulsed" by the user's "foul mouth." The contradictory reactions were so extreme that it prompted mockery online and a video of excerpts calling out Fox from a host at competitor CNN. On Wednesday, as the U.S. House of Representatives debated the big bill to cut taxes, cut social program spending, provide more money for immigration enforcement and the military, and increase the federal debt, Democrats professed outrage. U.S. Rep. Josh Riley, D-N.Y., ran through a litany of objections, before delivering his summary. "Don't tell me you give a s- about the middle class when all you're doing is s-ting on the middle class," he said on the floor of the U.S. House. That produced a tut-tut from U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., who was presiding over the House at the time. "Avoid vulgar speak. We do have families" present. U.S. Rep. Virginia Fox, R-N.C., chair of the House Rules Committee, echoed the reminder about "the language we should be using in this chamber." The admonishment prompted what was, in effect, a verbal eye roll from U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, top Democrat on the Rules Committee. "I hope that when the president comes here next, you'll admonish him for the language he uses." Driving the change Several factors are propelling the increasing use of coarse language by Democrats, Scacco said. It's more than simply imitating Trump, he said. The language in question "has a lot of anger in it, a lot of emotional appeal. Democratic messaging has often seemed bloodless in comparison, lacked feeling," he said. "Anger is a very effective emotion in mobilizing people and getting them to perk up a bit. That's what you see here is the use of emotion in sort of that strategic manner, being angry here, frustration," Scacco said. Scacco is co-author of the book "The Ubiquitous Presidency: Presidential Communication and Digital Democracy in Tumultuous Times." "I think that for their base that they're communicating. Their base wants to see that they are clued in to what's going on. And so swearing and that emotional language I think communicates to the base that their elected officials understand the gravity and the magnitude of what's happening," he said. Part of why it seems jarring is that the Democrats under Biden's presidency and for years under an older generation of party leaders in Congress generally stuck with "that sort of more civil, decorous politics" - before they were swept away by Trump and his political movement. Rick Hoye, chair of the Broward Democratic Party, said the kind of language that's used publicly today by some elected officials is different than what he heard when he first got involved in politics in 2009. Hoye said it is both a symptom of the gravity of how strongly Democrats feel and a response to the yearning by many in the party's base that leaders do something to convey how strongly they feel. "For our folks they're just tired. They're just expressing their frustration, the frustration that is felt on the ground," Hoye said. "Democrats like people that are aggressive and fight back." Hoye said Democratic elected officials are "expressing the frustrations of everyday Democrats." He said voters "probably appreciate the fact that their elected officials are fed up and they're speaking a language that everyone feels," adding that "the plain-spoken language lets constituents know that they're on the ground for them." "Our leaders have realized that if they don't fight like this, the average people will get discouraged and feel that they're not really in tune with their struggles and their sentiments. And the Democratic party doesn't want to risk losing contact with the people that we need to show up." That assessment was reflected in a reaction to one of Wasserman Schultz's strong comments at the Broward Democrats dinner. "Excuse my French," she said, prompting a shout from the audience: "Love it. We speak French." Larry Snowden, president of Club 47, the South Florida-based mega-sized club of Trump supporters, said the president is unique. "He's been using those words for a long time," he said, adding the Democrats seem to be attempting to emulate something that works for Trump. "They're in shambles. Why wouldn't you try to be like your opponent." Michele Merrell, the elected state Republican committeewoman from Broward County, said she doesn't think the language that works for Trump necessarily works for others in politics, and definitely not in her view the Democrats. "No one can out-Trump Trump," she said. "I see Democratic and Republican candidates try to emulate him," she said. 'I see various candidates try to copy his way of communicating, and it doesn't really come across. I don't think there's anyone who can replicate what he does." News coverage Such language was once much more hidden from the public. Two generations ago, one of the more shocking elements in the transcripts of then-President Richard Nixon's tapes was his frequent use of profanity. That's how the phrase "expletive deleted" came into common parlance for a time; it was the phrase inserted in brackets to replace Nixon's frequent use of vulgarities. Even the Richard Nixon Foundation, on its website, acknowledged "RN's unfortunate weakness for expletives." One big difference: Those were words he used in meetings and on the phone, not in widely seen public settings. And the actual words didn't get reported. Today, Scacco said, strong language is a tool that the party out of power - the Democrats - can use to "gain attention in an environment where people are not focused on them." By using earthy language, he said, "you attract the attention of journalists who are doing the story, and also people." How to report such language is tricky for the news media. Traditionally such words haven't been published or aired in mainstream outlets that sought to uphold what once was seen as a standard of decorum. But when they're uttered by major political figures, are all over social media, and when livesteams go out online and on cable television, the calculation about preserving the public's innocence isn't as clear. "Mainstream outlets generally don't include profanity in their news reports," wrote the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit based in St. Petersburg. Poynter found a range of usage decisions about Trump's use of the word. Some news organizations avoided the word in text, but used it in video. Others used the word. Some didn't use it in either video or print. Many used hyphens or asterisks to replace some of the word's letters. The Associated Press Stylebook cautions against using such terms in articles unless there is a compelling reason. The AP used "f" and asterisks in text and bleeped the word on video. In an article published in June before Trump used the word, the New York Times explained its policy that publishing such terms "should be rare. We maintain a steep threshold for vulgar words. There are times, however, when publishing an offensive expression is necessary for a reader's understanding of what is being reported" which may include "reporting vulgarities uttered by powerful public figures and wielded in a public setting." When published, the Times wrote "we typically confine it to a single reference, and avoid using it in headlines, news alerts or social media posts." The complexity of the question was laid out in the headline of a Poynter analysis: "What do you do when the president drops an f-bomb?" _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's trade brinkmanship imperils market stability
As the United States and China inch toward formalizing the outcomes of their recent economic talks in London, markets are sending a clear signal: they want stability, not another season of tariff theatrics. Yet the Trump administration's renewed protectionist tilt, including the looming July 9 deadline for punitive tariffs, risks derailing a fragile recovery and undermining American economic resilience. The London meetings followed a call between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, culminating in a framework that would resume China's rare earth exports and ease U.S. trade restrictions. It's an imperfect deal, but it reflects an important truth: Economic coercion has failed to deliver strategic outcomes. Markets, manufacturers and consumers are all still paying the price of the last trade war. Rare earths remain a critical node in this standoff. China refines nearly 80 percent of the global supply — inputs essential to American electric vehicles, semiconductors and defense technologies. When Beijing halted export approvals earlier this year, U.S. manufacturers faced mounting delays and soaring input costs. The reversal eases a significant bottleneck and offers inflation relief. In exchange, China will regain access to U.S. manufacturing inputs and regulatory clarity — a win for both sides, but especially for U.S. firms squeezed by global supply chain frictions. Rare-earth dynamics further reinforce the stakes. China's June 26 pledge to resume rare-earth shipments to the U.S. triggered a sharp rally in domestic producers. Meanwhile, export volumes from China had fallen nearly 50 percent year-over-year in May, citing tightened controls. Those disruptions directly impacted U.S. electric makers and aerospace supply chains. In this context, the tentative deal on rare-earths licensing isn't a niche victory — it's a strategic pivot that underscores: markets reward policy clarity, even in geopolitically charged commodity markets. Yet the calm is temporary. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff framework proposes up to 50 percent duties on countries that fail to sign new bilateral deals by July 9. A 90-day grace period has been offered, but this is brinkmanship disguised as strategy. And if the deadline passes without a broader deal, the tariffs snap back — with potentially damaging ripple effects. The last trade escalation offers a cautionary tale. Tariffs on Chinese goods hit 145 percent; Beijing responded with levies up to 125 percent. American manufacturers endured record costs, while exporters in both countries lost access to reliable markets. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China didn't shrink — it widened to $396 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, American farmers faced oversupply, and consumers bore the burden through higher prices. U.S. equities have responded to this nascent trade detente with enthusiasm. The S&P 500 ETF recently hit $615, brushing off earlier tariff jitters. Meanwhile, traders have rotated into commodities, with copper futures climbing nearly 3 percent in late June, reflecting expectations of stronger industrial demand under clearer supply logistics. Even gold has softened from conflict-driven highs. Markets are signaling that certainty matters — not tariff theatrics. The contrast is clear: a modest trade framework sparks calm; tariff threats inject volatility. That is the heartbeat investors care about. The global spillover from trade tensions was immediate. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank and International Monetary Fund all downgraded growth forecasts, citing the uncertainty created by revived trade barriers. Investor sentiment plunged. Only now, as trade talks signal détente, has the S&P 500 rallied and oil futures stabilized. Markets know the difference between real strategy and performative populism. So do the businesses that depend on open trade. Trump's tariffs didn't reshore factories or rebalance the trade deficit. What they did do was erode U.S. credibility with allies, invite World Trade Organization scrutiny and distort global supply chains. If the objective was to discipline China's behavior, the evidence shows failure. What has worked — albeit modestly — is targeted cooperation, regulatory certainty and consistent enforcement of existing rules. The current agreement is a pragmatic step forward. It restores supply chain continuity for U.S. firms, removes ambiguity for global investors, and signals that economic diplomacy still matters. It also nudges U.S. trade policy back toward rational engagement after years of unilateral theatrics. Legal uncertainty still clouds the picture. A recent federal court ruling in V.O.S. Selections v. United States raises questions about whether the White House even has the authority to implement broad-based tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the decision is upheld, it will undercut the legal rationale for Trump's tariff agenda — and perhaps prompt overdue congressional clarity on trade powers. The broader lesson is clear: economic interdependence isn't weakness — it's leverage. The U.S. and China will remain strategic competitors, but durable competition requires rules, not impulsive penalty regimes that backfire on domestic producers. If this new framework holds, it won't mark the end of rivalry — but it could mark the beginning of a more coherent doctrine of economic statecraft. One that recognizes that markets punish uncertainty, and that protectionism is not a patriotic virtue but an economic deadweight. For now, Washington would do well to recognize what the S&P already has: stability is strength. And the best way to keep markets calm is not through tariffs — but through smart, disciplined diplomacy. Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master's degree in international relations.
2 hours ago
New details emerge on Gaza ceasefire proposal as Netanyahu heads to White House
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip -- New details of the Gaza ceasefire proposal emerged on Sunday as Israel sent a negotiating team to Qatar ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's White House visit for talks toward an agreement. Inside the territory, hospital officials said Israeli airstrikes killed at least 38 Palestinians. 'There are 20 hostages that are alive, 30 dead. I am determined, we are determined, to bring them all back. And we will also be determined to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel,' Netanyahu said before departing, emphasizing the goal of eliminating Hamas' military and governing power. A person familiar with the negotiations shared with The Associated Press a copy of the latest ceasefire proposal submitted by mediators to Hamas, and its veracity was confirmed by two other people familiar with the document. All three spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the sensitive talks with the media. The document outlines plans for a 60-day ceasefire during which Hamas would hand over 10 living and 18 dead hostages, Israeli forces would withdraw to a buffer zone along Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt, and significant amounts of aid would be brought in. The document says the aid would be distributed by United Nations agencies and the Palestinian Red Crescent. It does not specify what would happen to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the American organization that has distributed food aid since May. Israel wants it to replace the U.N.-coordinated system. As in previous ceasefire agreements, Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli facilities would be released in exchange for the hostages, but the number is not yet agreed upon. The proposal stops short of guaranteeing a permanent end to the war — a condition demanded by Hamas -- but says negotiations for a permanent ceasefire would take place during the 60 days. During that time, 'President (Donald) Trump guarantees Israel's adherence' to halting military operations, the document says, adding that Trump 'will personally announce the ceasefire agreement.' The personal guarantee by Trump appeared to be an attempt to reassure Hamas that Israel would not unilaterally resume fighting as it did in March during a previous ceasefire, when talks to extend it appeared to stall. Trump said last week that Israel had agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire, but it was unclear if the terms were those in the document reviewed by the AP. Hamas has requested some changes but has not specified them. Separately, an Israeli official said the security Cabinet late Saturday approved sending aid into northern Gaza, where civilians suffer from acute food shortages. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision with the media, declined to give more details. Northern Gaza has seen just a trickle of aid enter since Israel ended the latest ceasefire in March. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's closest distribution site is near the Netzarim corridor south of Gaza City that separates the territory's north and south. Israeli strikes hit two houses in Gaza City, killing 20 Palestinians and wounding 25 others, according to Mohammed Abu Selmia, director of Shifa Hospital, which serves the area. Israel's military said it struck several Hamas fighters in two locations in the area of Gaza City. In southern Gaza, Israeli strikes killed 18 Palestinians in Muwasi on the Mediterranean coast, where thousands of displaced people live in tents, said officials at Nasser Hospital in nearby Khan Younis. It said two families were among the dead. 'My brother, his wife, his four children, my cousin's son and his daughter. ... Eight people are gone,' said Saqer Abu Al-Kheir as people gathered on the sand for prayers and burials. Israel's military had no immediate comment on those strikes but said it struck 130 targets across Gaza in the past 24 hours. It claimed it targeted Hamas command and control structures, storage facilities, weapons and launchers, and that they killed a number of militants in northern Gaza. Ahead of the indirect talks with Hamas in Qatar, Netanyahu's office asserted that the militant group was seeking 'unacceptable' changes to the ceasefire proposal. Hamas gave a 'positive' response late Friday to the latest proposal. The militant group has sought guarantees that the initial truce would lead to a total end to the war and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. Previous negotiations have stalled over Hamas demands of guarantees that further negotiations would lead to the war's end, while Netanyahu has insisted Israel would resume fighting to ensure the group's destruction. The war began when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage. Most have been released in earlier ceasefires. Israel responded with an offensive that has killed over 57,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. The ministry, which is under Gaza's Hamas government, does not differentiate between civilians and combatants. The U.N. and other international organizations see its figures as the most reliable statistics on war casualties.
