June 12, 2025 – In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court today issued a ruling that fundamentally alters the landscape for disability discrimination claims in educational settings. The Court overturned a lower court’s application of a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, which had previously imposed a substantial hurdle for plaintiffs alleging discrimination against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, brought into sharp focus the specific challenges faced by students requiring accommodations beyond typical school hours. The dispute centered on a student with epilepsy who was denied essential evening instruction. The lower court’s reliance on the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard implied that school districts would only be held liable for discrimination if their actions were demonstrably malicious or grossly negligent, effectively insulating them from claims where their decisions, while discriminatory, did not meet this high bar.
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down this heightened standard was rooted in a comprehensive interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law. The Court unequivocally stated that such a standard is inconsistent with the clear intent and provisions of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Crucially, the ruling clarified that these statutes provide independent protections for children with disabilities, and their scope is not to be limited or diminished by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While the IDEA focuses on ensuring a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act address broader issues of discrimination and equal access.
“This US Supreme Court ruling will make it easier to hold public schools accountable for disability discrimination through federal lawsuits.” said Special Eduction attorney Katherine George. “This is especially important because the recent decimation of the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has effectively eliminated enforcement of federal discrimination laws through administrative complaints. For those families with the means to litigate against schools, chances of success (including compensation for harm) will be greater without having to prove bad faith or gross misjudgment.”
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court: “… a great many children with disabilities and their parents…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…”
The decision concludes: “Congress was not naive 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.”