Supreme Court backs families fighting school district over disability discrimination
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Minnesota family that has been battling their local school district over the education of their daughter in a decision that could make it easier for other parents of disabled children to seek damages from schools under federal disability laws.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected a lower court ruling that had set a high legal bar to bring those claims, essentially shielding school districts from certain suits involving disability discrimination.
The teenager at the center of the case, identified in court papers as Ava, has a rare form of epilepsy that made it impossible for her to attend school in the morning. Her parents requested that the district accommodate her disability with evening instruction, but school officials initially declined to do so.
The parents filed a successful complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which resulted in a decision requiring the school to offer evening instruction.Ava's parents then sued the district for damages under the Americans with Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. That latter law is what allows parents and schools to develop '504 plans' to accommodate students with disabilities.
A federal district court ruled with the schools, holding that the family had not demonstrated that school administrators operated with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' a higher legal standard than the 'deliberate indifference' threshold that courts apply in other disability discrimination contests. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and the parents appealed to the Supreme Court in September.
In its decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the same standard that applies in other disability contexts should also apply in schools. It doesn't mean that the families will necessarily win their cases, but it will make it easier for them to bring their claims.
'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import' for the family involved in the litigation 'and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,'' Roberts wrote.
'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis,' Roberts added. '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.'
Five federal appeals courts have required parents to meet the higher standard to proceed with litigation and two others apply the lower standard.
Public school districts, worried about limited resources, had argued at the Supreme Court that the way to handle the case was not to lower the standard for families like the one involved but rather to raise it for everyone else. But the court dismissed that argument as arriving too late in the litigation.
The court's 'resolution of these issues could have significant ramifications for both disability law and discrimination law more generally,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 'That these issues are consequential is all the more reason to wait for a case in which they are squarely before us and we have the benefit of adversarial briefing.'
Two years ago, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with a student who is deaf and also sought to sue his school for damages. That case dealt with whether students could pursue those claims for damages before they exhaust administrative processes required under another law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Live updates: Trump military parade, ‘No Kings' protests
Update: Date: 4 min ago Title: National Guard "twiddling their thumbs in LA" instead of stopping fentanyl trafficking, Gov. Newsom says Content: Members of the California National Guard federalized by President Donald Trump have been pulled away from efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl at the US-Mexico border, Gov. Gavin Newson claimed in a social media post yesterday. Newsom's comments on X were in response to a post by White House adviser Stephen Miller regarding the administration's border security priorities. 'You just pulled National Guard I placed at the border who were stopping fentanyl smuggling,' Newsom wrote. 'Now they're twiddling their thumbs in LA.' Remember: Trump federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard against Newsom's will, with orders to protect federal buildings and personnel amid immigration protests in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Newsom said Trump's deployment of guard troops to LA also threatened the state's ability to respond to wildfires. Update: Date: 8 min ago Title: About 60 veterans and military families arrested last night at US Capitol protest after crossing police line Content: A group of roughly 60 individuals were arrested outside the US Capitol yesterday evening after breaching a police line of bike racks and moving toward steps leading to the Capitol Rotunda, according to the Capitol Police. The group, made up of veterans and military family members, planned a sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, as well as a military parade today, according to a news release from organizers. A group of approximately 75 protesters were demonstrating peacefully at the Supreme Court, just across the street from the US Capitol, according to a statement from the Capitol Police. As the group was leaving the area, officers began establishing a perimeter of bike racks to keep the protesters away from the Capitol. 'A few people pushed the bike rack down and illegally crossed the police line while running towards the Rotunda Steps,' the Capitol Police said. 'Our officers immediately blocked the group and began making arrests.' Police said: 'All will be charged with unlawful demonstration and crossing a police line. Additional charges for some will include assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.' The protest was organized by two advocacy groups — About Face: Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. The brief sit-in followed a rally and press conference, according to the organizers' news release. 'We want a future where we invest in care for veterans, in health care, and in education, not where we spend $50 million on a parade,' said Brittany Ramos DeBarros, an Army combat veteran and organizing director of About Face: Veterans Against the War, in a statement. Update: Date: 44 min ago Title: Here's where "No Kings" protests are expected to take place across the country today Content: Millions of Americans are expected to attend protests today in what organizers predict will be the strongest display of opposition to President Donald Trump's administration since he took office in January. More than 2,000 demonstrations across all 50 states have been planned through the 'No Kings' movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization is a direct response to Trump's military parade tonight celebrating the 250th anniversary of the US Army — which coincides with his 79th birthday. Update: Date: 2 min ago Title: Many GOP senators aren't attending Trump's military parade and one says he would've "recommended against" it Content: The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman said he would've advised against hosting a big military parade in Washington, DC — an unease with the event reflected by some of his fellow Senate Republicans. 'I would have recommended against the parade,' Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi told CNN when asked for his views on the event. Wicker, the chamber's top Republican with oversight of the military, said he would be out of town attending the Paris Air Show during the parade, which coincides with President Donald Trump's birthday. Most of the GOP senators surveyed by CNN this week said they did not plan to attend: • Senate Majority Leader John Thune won't be in DC for the parade. Asked about spending some $45 million on it at a time when many Republicans are demanding government austerity, he said: 'There are a lot of people who believe that's a cause worth celebrating.' • An aide to Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso said that after being at the White House twice this week, the senator would be back in Wyoming celebrating the Army's 250th birthday and Flag Day with his constituents. • Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, said he would miss the parade. 'Come on guys, we have lot of stuff to do. We have lots of parades in Washington,' he said. • Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas will also be at the air show in Paris, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma will be home celebrating his wedding anniversary, though he said he 'would love to see it.' • Sens. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Curtis of Utah, John Kennedy of Louisianna and Chuck Grassley all won't be there. One Republican with whom CNN spoke — Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall — told reporters Thursday he plans to attend the parade.
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Higher Oil Prices Mean Less GDP
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks after casting his ballot during the runoff ... More presidential election in Tehran on July 5, 2024. (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images) The shale revolution has been a huge boon for America, producing an enormous amount of income, tax revenue and employment as well as reducing CO2 emissions. At the same time, by reducing our net oil imports, they have substantially improved our energy security. But the simple metric of net imports understates the complexity of energy security. Energy vulnerability is often treated as nothing more than reliance on imports from foreign countries, and that is certainly a crucial element but hardly the only one. Conversely, the fact that the U.S. still imports as much as eight million barrels a day of oil overstates our vulnerability: lost imports would not mean a shortage for domestic consumers, as that oil is swapped out for domestic supplies for the sake of economic efficiency, and producers can simply retain crude that is currently exported. The Figure below breaks down the source of gross imports; the decline in oil from OPEC is pronounced, while the rise of Canadian oil imports, due to higher oil sands production, exaggerates the security of our supply, albeit only slightly. U.S. Oil Imports (thousand barrels per day) On the one hand, despite ongoing tension with Canada, they are unlikely to cut off sales to the U.S. for political reasons. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that in a new disruption of global oil supply, such as from unrest in Russia or war in the Middle East, Canadian oil would continue to be delivered to American refiners. In theory, Canada could use the U.S. for the transshipment of oil to better paying overseas customers, although given the globalized nature of the oil market, prices should not be significantly different elsewhere. Of course, should American politicians (foolishly) respond to a global oil crisis by restricting exports of domestic crude, U.S. oil prices would presumably drop below global prices, encouraging Canadian companies to export their oil elsewhere. Such a populist move by the U.S. would be detrimental and the impact multiplied if politicians tried to prevent Canadian companies from selling their oil onwards, mostly through the Gulf Coast ports. Should, say, a country like China offer attractive deals to Canadian companies for additional supply (similar to what happened in 1979), the political calculus becomes more complex. But this highlights another way the globalized oil market affects energy security: even if the U.S. is well-supplied with oil, a global oil crisis will translate into higher domestic oil prices. Absent political intervention, U.S. prices would rise to match global oil prices, meaning even with our current energy independence, a new oil crisis would inflict economic damage. Certainly, now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, higher oil prices would improve not worsen the trade balance. Still, sending the money from East Coast consumers to Southwest producers will have a deflationary impact on the economy because higher oil prices have an effect similar to a tax hike. Consumers would spend more for gasoline and reduce other spending accordingly. It is generally thought that a tax hike lowers GDP by 2-3 times the increased taxes, so that an increase in taxes equal to 1% of GDP yields a 2-3% reduction in GDP. Tax Increases Reduce GDP | NBER An oil price increase does not have precisely the same effect, because the money goes not from the private sector to the government but from one part of the private sector (consumers) to another (oil producers). Still, a $10/barrel increase in oil prices equates to roughly $35 billion in higher household expenditures, or about 0.1% of GDP. So, back of the envelope calculation suggests that GDP would drop somewhere on the order of 0.2% for every $10/barrel increase in oil prices. This effect is clearly seen in historical GDP data, as the figure below shows, although there are obviously many confounding factors. In all likelihood, the impact now would be less than in the past because our oil trade balance is positive; net exports, at 2 million barrels per day, will translate into modest but significant economic benefits. Still, in the case of a prolonged period of $100 per barrel oil, which many think could be achieved if the Middle East situation worsens significantly, a GDP loss of 0.5% is quite likely. Change in Real GDP (percent) At present, it appears unlikely that Middle Eastern oil supply will be affected by the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Attacks on shipping or the Straits of Hormuz would boost prices but are unlikely to persist beyond a few weeks. More worrisome would be an Israeli attack on Iranian oil facilities, although at present, such is not expected. So, $100 oil for several months would not automatically translate into a recession, but would have a notable impact on GDP growth, especially if the Fed raises interest rates as higher oil prices increase inflation. But an oil price spike will definitely worsen consumer and business confidence. As much as it would be nice for cash-rich Southwesterners to spend their increased income on Maine lobster and New England clam chowder, a prolonger period of higher oil prices--$100 or more—will be disruptive enough to threaten at least significant economic slowing and potentially tip us into a recession.
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people , including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use . In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military . Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
