This Supreme Court Decision Could Change the Lives of Millions of Students With Disabilities
Last month, in a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court decided that students with disabilities will no longer face a higher legal standard when seeking justice for discrimination in schools—one that does not exist in other settings covered by US anti-discrimination law. The case, called AJT v. Osseo Community School District, has received relatively little attention compared with other blockbuster decisions from this term. But it has the potential to change the lives of millions of students with disabilities.
There are almost 8 million students with disabilities across the country, and that number is growing with each passing school year. The court's decision in AJT will allow more disabled students to access their educational rights and fight discrimination on the basis of disability, consistent with the plain language and purpose of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. By reversing the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, the court restored the full protection of federal disability nondiscrimination law to disabled students.
The plaintiff , Ava, is a student in the Osseo Public School District in Minnesota. Ava has a rare form of epilepsy that severely affects her ability to function in the morning. Ava's parents requested that she receive evening instruction because of her epilepsy. The school district declined to give Ava this reasonable accommodation and abruptly amended her individualized education plan to only allow for three hours of instruction, which was less than half of what her nondisabled peers received.
Ava's parents sued the school district, alleging denial of educational rights and disability discrimination under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Section 504, and Title II of the ADA. As the Supreme Court has recognized , all three of these laws work together to ensure better educational outcomes for students with disabilities, but they each work differently. IDEA guarantees eligible children with disabilities a free, appropriate public education that includes special education and related services that allow each child to access education. These services are detailed in a written individualized education plan that is approved by both the child's parents and the school. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that children with disabilities who do not need specialized instruction but do need accommodations to participate in public schools receive those accommodations. Finally, the ADA prohibits discrimination in services provided by state and local governments, which includes public schools.
For example, a student with intellectual disability may have an individualized education plan that includes speech therapy. If that child's school failed to provide that speech therapy, that would be a violation of the IDEA, as the plan is the “ centerpiece ” of a school's substantive obligations to ensure a free, appropriate public education as set by that law. Conversely, that same student might get the speech services listed in their plan, but as a wheelchair user could not access the school's second-floor library because the school lacked an elevator. That would be a straightforward violation of Section 504 and the ADA, but not of the IDEA. This is because a school district can provide a “free appropriate public education” under IDEA “while nevertheless engaging in discriminatory conduct” under Section 504 and the ADA. Our hypothetical students could sue their school district under Section 504 and the ADA to obtain a court injunction mandating that they be given access to the school library. Or they could sue under IDEA to get an injunction mandating that they be given speech therapy as outlined in their individualized education plan.
Plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination do not need to prove the defendant intended to discriminate on the basis of their disability in order to obtain injunctive relief under Section 504 or the ADA. Policies and practices that effectively exclude people with disabilities are actionable under these laws regardless of whether the discrimination was intentional. However, in Ava's case, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit applied a different, heightened standard to her Section 504 and ADA claims. The 8th Circuit relied on a decades-old precedent called Monahan v. Nebraska, holding that students with disabilities cannot bring Section 504 claims against school districts unless they show that the district acted in “bad faith” or with “gross misjudgment.” According to the 8 th Circuit, cutting a disabled student's instructional time in half did not meet that demanding standard, and so the 8 th Circuit chose to dismiss Ava's disability discrimination claims.
My organization, the Arc of the United States, has a storied history with federal education laws. In 1971, before federal protections for people with disabilities existed, states were free to exclude children with disabilities from their public schools—and many did. Millions of children were denied an education, not because they couldn't learn, but because our society didn't believe they were worth educating. That changed because of federal action. Parents, led by the Arc, fought in court and won in PARC v. Pennsylvania . Their victory laid the foundation for the IDEA, securing the right to a free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of their disability.
In March, the Arc joined with the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates and other disability rights organizations to file an amicus brief in support of Ava. It explains how the Monahan standard unjustly prevents students who are victims of disability discrimination from obtaining relief they would otherwise get without this heightened standard. Some examples include :
• Cherry, a nonverbal child with physical and intellectual disabilities who was repeatedly wrapped in a blanket and left in a room with flies crawling in and around her mouth and nose
• Kristopher, a student with a learning disability who went undiagnosed for nearly a decade as the school did nothing to identify and accommodate his needs
• AB, a child with learning and speech disabilities who was placed in a school district that didn't offer special education services like speech and language therapy
• JT, a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder whose grades were allegedly inflated artificially to prevent her from qualifying for special education services, even as the school knew she had years of below-average literacy test scores
All of these children had their legal claims dismissed because, despite obvious cases of discrimination, they were not able to prove the heightened standard of bad faith and gross misjudgment. None of these students deserved to experience this discrimination, and none of them were given avenues for relief. For 40 years, Monahan has been used in certain jurisdictions to excuse chronic failures by school districts to accommodate and educate youth with disabilities. This has harmed the disability community for decades.
Fortunately, the US Supreme Court saw that the Monahan standard was wrong. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts overruled the 8th 's Circuit's decision. The court held that “ADA and Rehabilitation claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” This common-sense decision is driven by the text of both statutes. Nothing in the statutory text of Section 504 or Title II of the ADA indicates that courts should apply a higher standard for discrimination in the K–12 education context than they would in any other disability discrimination case. The text of both the ADA and Section 504 plainly applies to “qualified individuals with disabilities,” without any reference to where the disabled person obtains a covered service. As the court explained, “that language is expansive and unqualified, confirming applicability to every such person.”
Likewise, the court noted that the plain text of the IDEA “makes clear that nothing in the IDEA restricts or limits the rights … that antidiscrimination statutes confer on students with disabilities.” This decision affirms that students with disabilities have the same rights under the ADA and Section 504 that other disabled people have, and those students should not have to further demonstrate bad faith or gross misjudgment on the part of the school.
The school district also tried to radically change its argument at the eleventh hour by expanding it. The school district argued that not only should students with disabilities be subject to a heightened standard to prove discrimination in school, but any person with a disability in any context should have to show that an entity acted intentionally to obtain any kind of relief under the ADA and Section 504.
But as Ava's lawyers noted , this would represent a “sea change” in disability rights law. In general, a plaintiff does not need to show a defendant's intent to obtain injunctive relief. Requiring this would contradict the plain language and legislative history of the law. In interpreting Section 504, the US Supreme Court found that disability discrimination is “most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference—of benign neglect.” And the court reaffirmed that Congress “had a more comprehensive view of the concept of discrimination” when it adopted Title II of the ADA . Both laws are meant to cover disability discrimination across a wide swath of public services, even without evidence of intentional discrimination.
If the US Supreme Court chose to adopt a heightened litigation standard for all disability rights claims, this would lead to absurd results that would undermine the very purpose of federal disability rights laws. For example, a wheelchair user would have to prove that a library or courthouse intended to discriminate against them when it failed to put in a ramp that allows them to access the building.
Because the school district had not briefed this argument in the courts below, the high court declined to consider it. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, explained how the plain text of both the ADA and Section 504 “reaches cases involving a failure to accommodate, even where no ill will or animus towards people with disabilities is present.” Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, indicated that he would welcome the school district's expanded argument should it be properly raised in a different case.
The court acknowledged that students with disabilities “face daunting challenges on a daily basis” and “those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof … to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504.” Schools must be held to the same standards as every other public entity—plain and simple. The US Supreme Court's decision in AJT will ensure just that.
Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter.
