On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, making it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for failing to provide adequate accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The decision lowered the burden of proof required for such claims, aligning educational settings with other disability discrimination contexts.
Case Background
The case involved Ava Tharpe, a Minnesota teenager with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a severe form of epilepsy causing cognitive impairment and frequent seizures. Her parents, Gina and Aaron Tharpe, argued that the Osseo Area School District failed to accommodate Ava’s need for instruction outside regular school hours due to her medical condition. After years of disputes, the family won a claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which ensures a “free appropriate public education” for disabled students. However, they also sought compensatory damages under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for expenses incurred on private specialists, which IDEA does not cover.
Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, dismissed the ADA claim, citing a 1982 precedent (Monahan v. Nebraska) requiring plaintiffs to prove schools acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in education-related disability cases—a higher standard than the “deliberate indifference” required in other ADA contexts. The Tharpes appealed, arguing this heightened standard unfairly burdened disabled students.
Supreme Court Ruling
In a 9-0 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, stating that lower courts had improperly limited disabled students’ ability to enforce their ADA and Rehabilitation Act rights by imposing a stricter standard. The Court clarified that students need only show “deliberate indifference” to their needs, consistent with non-educational disability discrimination cases. Roberts emphasized that Congress intended equal protections across contexts, rejecting the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” requirement as inconsistent with federal law.
Justices Clarence Thomas (joined by Brett Kavanaugh) and Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson) wrote concurring opinions, reinforcing the ruling’s alignment with statutory text and broader disability rights. The decision overturned the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, allowing the Tharpe family to pursue their ADA claim in lower courts.
Impact and Reactions
The ruling affects lawsuits in regions where higher standards previously applied, notably the Eighth Circuit, covering seven states (Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Missouri). It levels the playing field for disabled students, enabling claims for compensatory damages (e.g., for private tutoring or medical costs) when schools fail to accommodate needs knowingly or recklessly.
Disability rights groups, who closely monitored the case, hailed the decision as removing a “nearly insurmountable barrier” to justice. Posts on X reflected positive sentiment, with users like @MotherJones noting the conservative court’s support for disability rights and @SCOTUSblog summarizing the unified standard. However, school officials expressed concerns about increased litigation, fearing strained resources and adversarial parent-school relationships.
Broader Context
This ruling aligns with recent Supreme Court trends addressing discrimination, including unanimous decisions on “reverse discrimination” and gun manufacturer liability. It underscores the Court’s focus on statutory consistency, ensuring equal application of federal anti-discrimination laws. For families like the Tharpes, it offers hope for accountability when schools fall short, though schools worry about balancing limited budgets with compliance.
For further details, see coverage from The Washington Post, The New York Times, or NPR. Would you like me to analyze related X posts or provide more legal context?