Supreme Court makes it easier to sue schools over disability accommodations
In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with the family of Ava Tharpe who argued that schoolchildren had to meet an unfairly high burden to show schools are falling short under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act and other disability statutes. The ruling means students' claims against schools are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that some lower courts were 'implicitly limit[ing] the ability of disabled schoolchildren to vindicate their independent ADA and Rehabilitation Act Rights, thereby making it more difficult to secure statutory remedies provided by Congress.'
Ava's case began in 2015 when she transferred to a Minnesota school. She has a rare form of epilepsy that causes the most intense seizures in the morning, so she is unable to attend classes before noon. She also needs help walking and using the bathroom. Ava's old school accommodated her needs by giving her evening instruction, but Osseo Area Public Schools denied her request for similar accommodations.
The schools offered shifting rationales, including that providing the services would set an unfavorable precedent for other school districts and that they did not want to teach Ava in her home.
Between 2015 and 2018, Ava received only 4¼ hours of instruction per day as opposed to 6½ hours of instruction for a typical student. After the school district proposed additional cuts, Ava's parents filed a discrimination claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides federal funds to states in exchange for guarantees that disabled students receive a 'free appropriate education.'
An administrative law judge found Osseo schools had violated IDEA, and federal courts affirmed the decision. The family then sued under the ADA and other provisions requesting a permanent injunction, but a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit issued a summary judgment for the school district.
The 8th Circuit found that a student must show 'something more than a mere failure to provide' a free appropriate education. For technical reasons, the court found the appropriate bar should be a heightened standard of 'bad faith and or gross misjudgement' — one not used in other types of disability discrimination cases. Other courts use an easier-to-prove requirement known as 'deliberate indifference.'
'It's wrong to impose any sort of uniquely stringent standard on children facing discrimination in schools,' Roman Martinez, an attorney for Ava's family, told the justices during oral arguments in April.
Lisa Blatt, an attorney for Osseo schools, told the justices that the 'district cares deeply about Ava and gave her more service than any other student' but that changing the legal standard for proving a disability claim would weigh heavily on schools. She said schools would be exposed to more legal action and possibly severe sanctions under the ADA.
'Reversing … would expose 46,000 public schools to liability,' Blatt said. 'Every good-faith disagreement would risk liability or even the nuclear option — the loss of federal funding.'
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
30 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
CMS Establishes New Billing Code for Breast Pump Replacement Valves Following Cimilre's Advocacy
BOSTON, August 21, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Symmetrical Health, LLC, doing business as Cimilre Breast Pumps, announced today that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has established a new HCPCS Level II code A4288, "Valve for breast pump, replacement." This decision follows a formal request submitted by Cimilre, spearheaded by Jacqui Penda, CLC, to recognize replacement valves as essential breast pump components. Breast pump valves are critical to the performance and efficiency of personal breast pumps. They attach to the underside of the breast shield, maintaining suction and facilitating milk flow into the collection container. Manufacturers recommend replacing valves every 1–3 months, as worn valves compromise suction and efficiency, potentially impacting milk supply. Previously, replacement valves could only be billed under generic codes, creating barriers for coverage and leading many mothers to delay replacing them due to out-of-pocket costs. With this new HCPCS code, replacement valves are now clearly defined, allowing providers to more accurately bill for and supply essential equipment to breastfeeding families. "This decision by CMS is a meaningful win for mothers and families," said Jacqui Penda, CLC, of Symmetrical Health dba Cimilre Breast Pumps. "Valves are small but absolutely essential to the performance of a breast pump, and without them, breastfeeding outcomes can be jeopardized. By establishing a dedicated code, CMS has acknowledged the importance of proper pump maintenance and helped remove a barrier that too often discouraged families from replacing worn valves. This change ensures more parents will have access to the supplies they need to continue breastfeeding with confidence." This step brings replacement valves in line with other recognized breast pump parts such as bottle sets, breast shields, tubing, caps, and locking rings—reinforcing their importance to breastfeeding success. About Cimilre Breast Pumps Cimilre is dedicated to supporting parents on their breastfeeding journey by providing innovative breast pumps and accessories designed with comfort, performance, and accessibility in mind. With a focus on advancing maternal health through technology and advocacy, Cimilre continues to champion policies that make breastfeeding equipment more affordable and widely available. View source version on Contacts Tabatha YoungEmail: marketing@ Phone: 888-394-2422
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Video shows Owatonna Hy-Vee employee giving Heimlich to choking customer
Nineteen-year-old Owen Thurnau is being credited with saving a man's life after the Owatonna, Minnesota, Hy-Vee employee successfully gave the Heimlich maneuver to a choking man last month. It happened during a store event, as customers dined on food in the store parking lot. Thurnau says he heard a woman yelling for help and saw quickly that her dad was choking. "As soon as the audio cue went off, I ran immediately straight towards the man and started performing the Heimlich," Thurnau said. "It's straight instinct." Despite never being formally trained on how to administer the Heimlich maneuver, Thurnau says he had learned enough in school to know what to do. In a matter of seconds, the food was dislodged and the man was safe. "It was super scary — just running over — and it's like, 'Oh my goodness – this man is actually choking'. To have his life in my hands… It's something I hope I never have to do again, but I'm always ready to do it again if it ever happened," Thurnau said. The man, who is in his eighties, was able to leave under his own power. Thurnau went back to work. "Afterwards, it was kind of like nothing really happened. Once it was over, I kind of just went back to my shift," he said. Store manager Randy Ritts says he knows Thurnau is the type of employee who does not seek the spotlight, but he's making sure he gets credit for his lifesaving action. The store named Thurnau employee of the month and held a ceremony for him in front of family and coworkers. Thurnau says he's also gotten a letter from the company CEO and a memo about his lifesaving action went out to Hy-Vee's nearly 90,000 employees. "It's 100% about just caring for your neighbor. Always looking out for someone in need and doing the right thing when called upon. It takes a special type of person to react in those situations," Ritts said. "I think the big takeaway is to just always be prepared for anything, right? Always be willing to lend a helping hand. Even if you don't know what to do," Thurnau said.
