Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO
The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 12 unanimously sided with a disabled student trying to sue her school for not doing enough to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, a decision that could make it easier for families to seek damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The justices said a lower court used the wrong standard when rejecting the discrimination lawsuit.
The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, was 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 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.
Seizures prevent attending school before noon
In this case, Gina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Osseo Area School District to accommodate their daughter's severe cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon.
A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home.
But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what nondisabled students received.
Judge says school didn't do enough
A local judge said in 2021 the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs; instead, they were concerned with 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 court 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 court order to permanently set the hours of instruction. Section 504 is the law that started school-based ''504 plans'', a central tool for providing accommodations to students with disabilities.
More: For students with disabilities, what's the difference between IEPs and 504 plans?
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – 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.
More: Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections?
School said there was no intentional discrimination
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 were unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases based on educational services, their attorneys argued − with the support of the Justice Department.
Attorneys for the school district argued the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination, which is not what happened here. They also say the school 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.'
The court's decision revives, but does not settle, the Tharpe's lawsuit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
West Vancouver demolition order halted after appeal court finds judge had conflict
B.C.'s appeal court has overturned an earlier decision upholding a demolition order for a West Vancouver mansion. Homeowner Rosa Dona Este was successful in her bid to overturn the earlier court decision, after it was found the judge who allowed the order to go ahead had previously worked for a law firm representing the municipality and had consulted on the matter of Este's home. Este had argued against the judge's decision about the validity of the demolition order but also raised concerns over the judge's involvement in the case before being appointed to B.C.'s Supreme Court. 'According to Dr. Este, the judge also erred by failing to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias,' said the appeal court's decision, handed down earlier this month. 'Este raised this issue prior to the hearing and advanced an application asking the judge to recuse herself on this basis. The judge dismissed the application, noting that almost seven years had elapsed since she had worked at the firm and stating she could not recall having ever been involved in the file or related matters.' While Judge Francesca Marzari had said previously that she did not recall working on the case involving Este's home, a lawyer for the West Vancouver district later filed an affidavit that said Marzari 'had sent an email to employees of the District advising them on matters related to the possible demolition of Dr. Este's home.' 'This information about the judge's prior involvement in the matter under appeal is clearly relevant to Dr. Este's allegation of apprehension of bias. For the reasons that follow, I conclude Dr. Este's applications must be granted,' wrote appeal court Justice Bruce Butler. Butler noted that if the appeal were refused, 'steps could be taken that could lead to irreparable harm to Dr. Este.' 'The balance of convenience, and particularly the overriding concern for maintaining judicial independence and impartiality, weighs in favour of granting a stay,' he wrote. The property in question is a 6,000-sq.-ft. waterfront home at 2668 Bellevue Ave. and was bought in 2003 by Este and her mother, Mina Esteghamat‑Ardakan. Este lived in the home until 2015 when a fire caused extensive damage. The home remained uninhabited and in a derelict state until 2020 when, following a number of neighbour complaints, the district ordered it demolished. Complications arose when the district found Este had rebuilt parts of the home without having sought proper permits or permission from her co-owner. Este's ex-husband, Mehran Taherkhani, also fought the demolition, arguing he had a stake in the matter because of divorce proceedings set for trial in 2026. Este and her mother had also previously been in court, battling over control of the property. sip@ Related Family battle over derelict West Vancouver house doesn't sway judge, who orders demolition to proceed
USA Today
11 hours ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
Hamilton Spectator
14 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him 'in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible,' breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis , Florida has executed nine people in 2025 , more than than any other state , and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024 . Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions . John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
