Supreme Court lowers hurdle for disability claims against schools

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously said students with disabilities do not have to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to bring certain education-related claims under federal disability laws. The ruling could make it easier for families to pursue discrimination cases against school districts when IDEA remedies are not enough.

Why it matters: - The ruling removes a higher legal barrier that had made some disability-discrimination claims against public schools harder to win. - Families may have a clearer path to challenge school district conduct under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. - The decision matters most when schools fail to respond to documented disability-related needs, accommodations or services.

What happened: - In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule requiring students to prove a school district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” - Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court that education-related ADA and Section 504 claims should face the same legal standards as disability-discrimination claims in other settings. - Reuters reported that the Court rejected an Eighth Circuit standard that imposed a more demanding test on students with disabilities because their claims arose in school.

The details: - The case involved A.J.T., a student with a rare form of epilepsy that kept her from attending school in the morning. - After the family moved to Minnesota, the school district declined requests for evening instruction that would have given her comparable educational hours. - The family won relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act after an administrative law judge found the district denied a free appropriate public education. - The family separately brought discrimination claims under Section 504 and the ADA, and the lower courts applied the heightened Eighth Circuit standard. - The Supreme Court said the ruling does not create automatic liability whenever a school violates the IDEA. - The Court also did not say every special-education dispute supports monetary damages. - The decision leaves intact other case-specific questions, including damages, intent, causation, remedies, procedure and defenses.

Between the lines: - The ruling builds on Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the Court’s 2023 decision that students seeking relief the IDEA cannot provide may not always need to finish the IDEA process first. - Together, Perez and A.J.T. strengthen the idea that IDEA is not the only federal law protecting students with disabilities in public schools. - The decision still leaves families with a fact-specific burden. An IEP dispute alone does not automatically become an ADA or Section 504 damages case. - The practical significance is for cases where a district has repeated notice, but the same access problems continue.

What's next: - Families and lawyers are likely to use the ruling to reassess school disputes that involve repeated refusals, missed services or exclusion from programs. - Parents concerned about ongoing failures may keep records of IEPs, Section 504 plans, evaluations, emails, meeting notes, service-delivery records, attendance, discipline and evidence of consequences to the student. - Courts will still decide, case by case, whether conduct amounts to IDEA violations, disability discrimination, or both.

The bottom line: - The Supreme Court made it easier for students with disabilities to bring federal discrimination claims against schools, but the ruling does not turn every special-education dispute into a civil-rights damages case.