
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


Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
US shifts military resources in Mideast in response to Israel strikes and possible Iran attack
WASHINGTON — The United States is shifting military resources, including ships, in the Middle East in response to Israel's strikes on Iran and a possible retaliatory attack by Tehran, two U.S. officials said Friday. The Navy has directed the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner to begin sailing toward the Eastern Mediterranean and has directed a second destroyer to begin moving forward, so it can be available if requested by the White House. President Donald Trump is meeting with his National Security Council principals to discuss the situation. The two U.S. officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The forces in the region have been taking precautionary measures for days, including having military dependents voluntarily depart regional bases, in anticipation of the strikes and to protect those personnel in case of a large-scale response from Tehran. There are typically around 30,000 troops based in the Middle East. However, that number surged as high as 43,000 last October amid the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran as well as continuous attacks on commercial and military ships in the Red Sea by the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. The Hudner is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that is capable of defending against ballistic missiles. On Oct. 1, 2024, U.S. Navy destroyers fired about a dozen interceptors in defense of Israel as the country came under attack by more than 200 missiles fired by Iran.


WIRED
36 minutes ago
- WIRED
Here's What Federal Troops Can (and Can't) Do While Deployed in LA
Jun 13, 2025 9:48 AM Pentagon rules sharply limit US Marines and National Guard activity in Los Angeles, prohibiting arrests, surveillance, and other customary police work. Marine recruits march during a training exercise at Camp Pendleton, California. Photograph: Michael Macor/AP Photo For the first time in decades, active-duty US Marines are rolling into Los Angeles—not for disaster relief or training drills, but to guard federal buildings during a protest crackdown that legal experts say threatens long-standing limits on military power at home. The deployment, announced by President Donald Trump on Monday, involves more than 700 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Regiment of the 1st Marine Division, based at Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms. Mobilized under Title 10 orders, the Marines have been commanded to protect federal property and personnel from mounting protests over aggressive immigration raids and neighborhood sweeps. It is a rare and forceful use of federal military power on US soil. The mobilization follows Trump's June 7 order that federalized as many as 4,000 California national guardsmen, overriding the objections of state officials and igniting a national debate over the constitutional limits of his authority and igniting a high-stakes legal fight. A US district judge on Thursday ordered Trump to return control of the guardsmen to the state of California, saying the takeover was unlawful, only likely to inflame tensions in the city, and had deprived the state of resources necessary 'to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions.' The injunction was quickly stayed, however, by a federal appeals court, pending a hearing next week. Protests began Friday in Westlake, an immigrant-heavy neighborhood near downtown LA, where residents rallied in response to sweeping ICE raids that targeted day laborers outside local businesses. Demonstrators marched, held signs, and chanted for several hours before tensions escalated after police declared an unlawful assembly and advanced on the crowd. LAPD officers and federal agents deployed a range of crowd control weapons, including batons, tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades. Reports from journalists and observers describe nonviolent protesters—and members of the press—being struck by rubber bullets and stun devices during the crackdown. Widespread protests are expected in LA and at some 2,000 other locations around the US this weekend. While the president holds broad emergency powers, legal scholars say that without invoking the Insurrection Act—a statute that permits domestic troop deployments only in cases of a rebellion or civil rights violations—federal law sharply limits what active-duty forces can do. Marines may not act as a posse comitatus , or function as law enforcement. They're barred from arrests, surveillance, and crowd control, and may only support police in narrowly defined ways, according to Defense Department rules. Pentagon directives governing 'civil disturbance operations' reinforce these limits. Federal troops are prohibited from arresting civilians, searching property, and collecting evidence. They may not conduct surveillance of US persons. That includes not just individuals but vehicles, locations, and 'transactions.' They may not serve as undercover agents, informants, or interrogators. Unless a crime is committed by a service member or on military property, Title 10 forces are likewise banned from engaging in any kind of forensics for the benefit of civilian police—unless they are willing to put in writing that such evidence was obtained by consent. That said, there are numerous scenarios in which the military can provide assistance to police, including by giving them 'information' obtained 'in the normal course' of their duties, unless applicable privacy laws prohibit it. Military members can also provide police with a wide variety of assistance so long as it's in a 'private capacity' and they're off duty. Additionally, they can provide 'expert advice,' so long as it doesn't count as serving a function core to civilian police work. The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment; however, a staff member in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy confirmed for WIRED by phone the current set of policies under which deployed federal troops must operate. There is one major caveat to the military's restrictions. During an 'extraordinary emergency,' military commanders may take limited, immediate action to prevent massive destruction or to restore critical public services, but only so long as presidential approval is 'impossible' to obtain in advance. And while military personnel are naturally expected to maintain order and discipline at all times, under no circumstances are they required to stand down when their lives, or the lives of others, are in immediate danger. Still, enforcement of these rules in the field is far from guaranteed. Legal experts warn that adherence often varies in chaotic environments. Trump administration officials have also demonstrated a willingness to skirt the law. Last week, homeland security secretary Kristi Noem asked the Pentagon to authorize military assistance in conducting arrests and to deploy drone surveillance, according to a letter obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle—a move experts say directly contradicts standing legal prohibitions. At a press conference on Thursday, Noem stated the federal government was on a mission to 'liberate' Los Angeles from 'socialists' and the 'leadership' of California governor Gavin Newsom and LA mayor Karen Bass. US Senator Alex Padilla, who represents the citizens of California, was forcibly removed from the press conference after attempting to question Noem. Outside the press conference room, federal agents forced the senator to the ground, where he was temporarily placed in handcuffs. Unlike the National Guard, which is well trained for domestic crowd control, active-duty Marines generally receive relatively little instruction in handling civil unrest. Those who do typically belong to military police or specialized security units. Nonetheless, the Marine Corps has published footage online showing various task forces training with riot-control tactics and 'nonlethal' weapons. Constitutional concerns do not arise, however, when Marines face off against foreign mobs—such as in civilian zones during the Afghanistan war or on the rare occasion protesters breach the perimeter of a US embassy. And wartime rules of engagement are far more lenient than the rules of force by which Marines must adhere domestically. In a statement on Wednesday, US Northern Command, which oversees military support to nonmilitary authorities in the contiguous 48 states, confirmed the Marines had undergone training in all 'mission essential tasks,' including 'de-escalation' and 'crowd control.' They will reportedly be accompanied by legal and law enforcement experts. Constitutional experts warn that deploying military forces against civilian demonstrators blurs the line between law enforcement and military power, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for unchecked presidential authority. The risk deepens, they say, if federal troops overstep their legal bounds. If lines are crossed, it could open a door that may not close easily—clearing the way for future crackdowns that erode Americans' hard-won civil liberties.


CNN
37 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge blocks Trump executive order that requires proof of US citizenship to vote and limits mail-in ballots
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Friday blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order that seeks to revamp how elections are run in the United States. Judge Denise Casper issued a preliminary injunction halting requirements to show written proof of US citizenship when registering to vote in elections and Trump's effort to prohibit states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. The mail-in ballot ruling applies only in states that filed the lawsuit. Non-citizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, but opponents of the executive order argue that requiring the documentary proof of citizenship will deter people from registering. Casper, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, cited examples such as college students or immigrants who don't have access to a birth certificate or passport. The executive order, Casper wrote, 'would burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs to revamp voter registration procedures and would impede the registration of eligible voters, many of whom lack ready access to documentary evidence of citizenship (e.g., U.S. passport and other forms of identification that reflect citizenship).' The lawsuit is one of several that challenge Trump's election executive order. It was brought by California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. A federal judge in Washington, DC, previously ruled against the provision forcing registrants from providing documents proving their citizenship. This story is breaking and will be updated.