Justices Appear Skeptical of School District in Student Disability Rights Case
The Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Monday of a Minnesota school district's argument that students with disabilities must prove their school acted in 'bad faith' in failing to provide adequate accommodations in order to prove discrimination.
A family who had sued the district, the Osseo Area School District near Minneapolis, argued that federal law required merely that the school display 'deliberate indifference,' a lower standard.
The two sides had argued in front of lower courts over the legal standard in schools. But in recent court filings, the school district argued that the higher standard could apply broadly to all sorts of disability rights claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That unnerved some disability rights groups, who warned that if the court accepted the school district's argument, the higher 'bad faith' standard could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges.
The school district's position led to an unusually tense oral argument, with lawyers for the family and the federal government arguing that the district had improperly shifted its position after the justices had agreed to hear the case. The lawyer for the school district rejected those claims, going so far as to suggest that her opponents were lying, an accusation that prompted a rebuke from one of the justices.
The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, stemmed from a dispute over whether the Minnesota school district provided reasonable accommodations for Ava Tharpe, a teenage girl with severe epilepsy that made it difficult for her to attend school during normal hours.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
Thursday was a surprising day at the Supreme Court, and a religion case was part of the action. The justices released six unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in a closely watched battle over the scope of faith-based tax breaks. In that religion case, the full court agreed that Wisconsin officials were unlawfully privileging certain religious nonprofits over others by basing access to religious exemptions on how they expressed their beliefs. Organizations that served only members of their own religion or that openly evangelized were typically eligible for the tax break, while organizations that served all comers with no strings attached often were deemed not religious enough to qualify. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion, which reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling against a group of Catholic nonprofits. The decision is significant, since it could lead to changes to religious exemptions nationwide. But the fact that it was unanimous isn't as surprising as it may, at first, have appeared. If there's a case to be made that the Supreme Court's ruling was unexpected, it centers on the role religious freedom advocates played in the battle. Faith-related groups did not speak with one voice on how the justices should interpret the First Amendment. They put together competing legal briefs and press releases. More liberal organizations and individuals supported Wisconsin's narrow religious exemption, arguing that an overly broad tax break would harm workers, including people of faith. More conservative groups, on the other hand, said religious freedom law requires broad exemptions, which enable faith-based organizations to operate according to their beliefs. While these arguments were specific to the Supreme Court case on Catholic nonprofits, they should be familiar to anyone who follows faith-related policy debates. Religious groups and faith-related advocacy organizations no longer agree on what religious freedom means — nor on whether or not conservative Christians, in particular, are demanding too many concessions in the public square. Those disagreements help explain why different religious freedom advocates held very different views on President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during last year's election, as the Deseret News previously reported, and why some faith groups support a push to limit the application of a landmark religious freedom law. More liberal advocates generally believe religious liberty protections work best when they're balanced with other types of protections, including LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, while more conservative advocates generally say religious freedom should win out. If you dig into the justices' track record on religion over the 20 years Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court, you'll find several rulings that reflect this tension. Among other issues, the court has split along ideological lines in cases involving school prayer, state funding for religious schools and the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. In these decisions and others, the court's conservative majority embraced a broad interpretation of religious exercise protections, while the court's more liberal justices called for limitations on religious freedom in their dissents. These split decisions are often what people think of when they think of the Supreme Court and religion — but they're actually the exception, not the rule. From Roberts' confirmation in September 2005 to April 2021, religious freedom claims succeeded in front of the Supreme Court 13 times. Nine of those 13 rulings were either unanimous or from a mixed 7-2 majority, according to a Deseret News analysis from 2021. In the four years since that analysis was released, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion claims in merits cases seven more times. Four of the decisions were unanimous, while a fifth was 8-1. In other words, the justices are finding ways to bridge the gap between conservative and liberal takes on religious freedom, including in cases involving LGBTQ rights. When you consider the court's record on religion, Thursday's unanimous ruling no longer seems surprising. But it might still feel worth celebrating, especially if you're worried about the state of the religious freedom landscape. Before the Supreme Court enters its summer recess in early July, the justices will have one more opportunity to model consensus-building in a religious freedom case. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court is considering whether the First Amendment gives religious parents a right to opt their kids out of reading or hearing books about LGBTQ issues. During oral arguments in April, the court appeared divided along ideological lines, as the Deseret News reported at the time. More liberal justices seemed to support the school district, which said that religious freedom protects you from being coerced into changing your beliefs, not from being exposed to other ideas. More conservative justices seemed to support the families, who felt like their religious teachings were being drowned out. It wasn't immediately clear what a compromise ruling would look like. But even as Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked tough questions of the school district's attorney, he reminded everyone to keep searching. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win,' he said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
SCOTUS does not challenge MD assault weapon law
Washington (DC News Now) — A win for gun restriction advocates as the Supreme Court rejects 2 cases, including not hearing Maryland's ban on assault rifles. The Hill's Zach Schonfeld, the court and legal reporter, talks about the ruling and what this could mean for other cases. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
