Latest news with #A.J.T.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a teenage girl and her parents who are attempting to sue the girl's school district for alleged disability discrimination. The decision, which did not rule on the merits of the case, is similar to another recent unanimous ruling finding that courts cannot require different discrimination cases to meet different standards of proof to receive a favorable judgment. The case revolves around a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy that severely impacts her physical and cognitive abilities. The girl, identified as "A. J. T." in court documents, has so many seizures each morning that she is unable to attend school before noon. According to her family's suit, the girl received additional evening instruction in her first school district. However, when the family moved to Minnesota, the girl's new school district refused to provide similar accommodations. Instead, she ended up only having a 4.25-hour school day, as opposed to the regular 6.5-hour school day other students received. When the district suggested cutting back her instructional time further, the family sued, claiming that the Minnesota school district's refusal to provide A. J. T. with enough instructional time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. However, two lower courts ruled against the family. The 8th Circuit ruled that simply failing to provide A. J. T. a reasonable accommodation wasn't enough to prove illegal discrimination. Rather, because the family was suing a school, they would be subject to a higher standard than plaintiffs suing other institutions. The family was told they had to prove that the school's behavior rose to the level of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment." The Supreme Court disagreed. In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disability discrimination "claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," adding that "Nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reiterated how nonsensical the 8th Circuit's higher standard for educational disability discrimination claims was, noting that some of the most obvious forms of disability discrimination do not involve bad faith or misjudgment against the disabled. "Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space; the lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a deaf 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," she wrote. "The statutes' plain text thus reaches cases involving a failure to accommodate, even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present." Last week, the Court reached a similar decision, ruling in favor of a straight woman who wanted to sue her employer for sexual orientation–based discrimination but faced a heightened standard of proof because she was a "majority group" plaintiff. In that case, the Court also unanimously ruled that forcing some plaintiffs to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination was unconstitutional and unsupported by federal antidiscrimination law. The post Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional appeared first on
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the family of Ava Tharpe, a teen with a rare form of epilepsy whose suburban Minneapolis district denied her request for a modified school day. The decision, A.J.T. vs. Osseo Area Schools, means K-12 students do not have to meet a higher standard of proof than others suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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.'
Newsweek
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Just Dropped Four Unanimous Opinions in One Day
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, delivered four unanimous opinions on Thursday, showing a united front on a range of cases. Newsweek has reached out to several legal experts for comment via email on Thursday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority. During President Donald Trump's first term, he nominated conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Voting along ideological lines is part of the deterioration of the public's confidence in the nation's highest court, which has declined over the decades. Forty-seven percent of Americans expressed a favorable view, and 51 percent held an unfavorable opinion, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent of Americans viewed the court favorably, while 17 percent had an unfavorable opinion, according to the Pew Research Center. The same survey found that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say that the justices are not doing a good job of keeping their personal politics out of their decisions. Supreme Court data shows unanimous decisions are not uncommon, with 44 percent of cases decided unanimously in 2023 and 50 percent in 2022. However, in 2021, the percentage dipped down under 30 percent, the lowest in decades. What To Know On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued six decisions, including four unanimous rulings. In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Soto v. United States, Martin v. United States, and Rivers v. Guerrero, all nine justices reached the same conclusion. In A.J.T., the court ruled that "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 context." Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion. The US Supreme Court is seen on Thursday, May 1, 2025. The US Supreme Court is seen on Thursday, May 1, 2025. Photo by Aaron Schwartz/Sipa USA/AP Images The ruling came after A.J.T., a student with epilepsy, sued her Minnesota public school over denying her request for evening instruction related to her medical condition, which resulted in fewer instruction hours than her peers. In another ruling, the court unanimously held that the six-year limitations period under the Barring Act does not apply to claims brought under the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute. The ruling came in the case of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, who sought retroactive benefits for service-related PTSD. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Georgia family can proceed with a lawsuit against the federal government after FBI agents mistakenly raided their home during a botched operation. The justices held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not shield the government from liability under the Supremacy Clause or discretionary-function exception in such cases. In a fourth decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a second habeas petition is considered "second or successive" once a district court issues final judgment on the first, even if that judgment is still on appeal. The decision in the case of Texas inmate Danny Rivers means he needed appellate approval before filing a new petition based on newly discovered evidence. What People Are Saying Attorney Patrick Jaicomo, who represents the plaintiffs in Martin v. U.S., said in a statement: "We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights." Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Ava Tharpe in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, told Reuters in a statement that the ruling is "a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term typically ending in late June.
New York Post
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Neil Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange: ‘I'm not finished'
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of 'lying' in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. 4 Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Getty Images Counsel 'should be more careful with their words,' Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. 'OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,' Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. 'Ms. Blatt,' Gorsuch told her, 'I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.' 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'OK,' she fired back. 'Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…' Gorsuch cut in, telling her, 'I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase.' 'You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–' Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. 4 Judge Neil Gorsuch is sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS 'Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,' Gorsuch said, before continuing: 'But lying is another matter.' He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. 'I'm not finished,' Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. 'Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt,' he then told her of the lying accusation. 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'Fine, I withdraw,' she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, 'I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry.'
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. Read On The Fox News App Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. "OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "OK," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…" Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase." "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. "Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter." He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."Original article source: Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
