Justices seem sympathetic to student in disability discrimination case
The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Monday to the arguments of the parents of a Minnesota teen with severe epilepsy who want schools to do more to accommodate the needs of disabled students.
The case focuses on whether families must meet an unfairly high burden to show schools are falling short. It is being closely watched by disability advocates and schools, with officials saying a ruling for the girl — identified as Ava in court filings — could make it easier for millions of students to require educators to do more to tailor teaching to their unique situations.
Roman Martinez, an attorney for Ava's family, told the justices during oral argument that some federal courts require students with disabilities to show that school officials acted in 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' to prove a discrimination claim under landmark disability laws — a bar not required in other 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,' Martinez said in court.
Ava has a rare form of epilepsy. She requires help walking and going to the bathroom, and has difficulty communicating. Her seizures are most severe in the morning, so she typically cannot attend school before noon.
After moving to Minnesota in 2015, Ava's parents asked the Osseo Area School District in the Minneapolis suburbs to match the evening instruction and other accommodations she had received from her previous school district in Kentucky.
Ava's parents said Osseo schools refused, offering shifting rationales, including that providing the requested services would set an unfavorable precedent for other school districts and that they did not want to teach Ava in her home. During her first three years at Osseo schools, Ava got about 65 percent of the instructional time typically given to students without disabilities.
The school district said it worked hard to accommodate Ava, including meeting with her parents before they enrolled her and starting her school day at noon. The system offered to engage in mediation to resolve differences over Ava's education plan, but officials said her parents refused.
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act guarantees schoolchildren with disabilities a 'free appropriate public education.' People who claim schools have failed to meet the act's guidelines can sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
Ava's parents did so, asking for a permanent injunction to require Osseo to provide her a full day of instruction. They also sought compensatory damages for Ava's alleged mistreatment. The district court rejected the discrimination claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding Ava's family had not proven the 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' standard.
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.' She also said a ruling for Ava would expose schools 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.'
Blatt argued that the justices should impose the more stringent 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' standard in all disability discrimination cases, not just those related to schools. Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical, saying that would be a 'sea change.'
'That strikes me as a pretty big deal,' Barrett said. 'We don't have other circuits that have adopted the question.'
The federal government is backing Ava's parents, arguing that the 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' standard has no basis in the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.
Monday's argument grew unusually testy at one point, with Blatt accusing the attorney for Ava's family of lying. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch demanded that Blatt withdraw the accusation, which she eventually did.
'You should be more careful with your words, Ms. Blatt,' Gorsuch told her.
A decision in the case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, is expected by summer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
4 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Administration Removes Hospital Guidance on Emergency Abortions
The Trump administration announced that it was ending Biden-era guidance that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions for women across the country. Issued in 2022, the guidance was an effort to preserve abortion access nationwide for women in extreme cases in the wake of the Supreme Court issuing the Dobbs Decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned rulemaking on abortion back to the state level.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court of Appeals rejects lawsuit targeting NM's oil and gas pollution enforcement
Jun. 3—SANTA FE — The state Court of Appeals on Tuesday dismissed a landmark lawsuit that could have halted oil and gas drilling in New Mexico, the nation's second-highest oil producing state. While the ruling is expected to be appealed, it dealt a blow to plaintiffs who claimed the state's failure to enact strict pollution control measures had led to damaging health issues. Those plaintiffs included Native American activists and several environmental groups who filed the lawsuit and lamented its dismissal. "New Mexicans amended our constitution 50 years ago to protect our residents from pollution," said Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "With this terrible ruling, the court has eviscerated our constitutionally protected rights." She also predicted the Tuesday ruling would lead to more air pollution, more contaminated land and water, and more sickness in New Mexico communities. "We'll continue our fight against the filthy oil and gas industry on behalf of all New Mexicans and will be appealing this decision to the state Supreme Court," Evans added. The lawsuit was filed in state District Court in 2023, with plaintiffs attorneys at the time comparing the effort to a court challenge targeting New Mexico's public education system that led to a landmark 2018 ruling. But a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals found a constitutional provision declaring the protection of the state's "beautiful and healthful environment" to be of fundamental public interest does not compel certain action by the legislative and executive branches. "By its plain text, the (pollution control clause) contains no enforceable right, guaranteed to any individual or group, to be free from a given amount of pollution," Court of Appeals Judge Miles Hanisee wrote in his ruling. "Nor can it be inferred to create an enforceable right to a beautiful and healthful environment." Missi Currier, the president and CEO of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, commended the court's ruling to dismiss the lawsuit. "This decision affirms the importance of maintaining a clear, constitutional separation between policymaking and judicial interpretation," Currier said in a statement. She also said the state's oil and gas industry is committed to responsible development, environmental stewardship and economic opportunity for state residents. "We believe that meaningful progress on climate and energy must come from collaboration, innovation, and respect for the rule of law," Currier added. Oil production has surged in New Mexico in recent years, driving state revenue collections to record-high levels. Oil and gas revenue make up about 35% of the state's $13.6 billion in projected revenue for the coming fiscal year, according to legislative data. Specifically, New Mexico crude oil production more than doubled from March 2020 to March of this year, jumping from 34,873 barrels to 69,958 barrels. But some New Mexicans say that production boom has come at a high cost, citing elevated methane emissions — even after enactment of a new state methane rule in 2021 — and health issues in the Permian Basin and Four Corners region, where much of the oil and natural gas activity is located. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals' ruling comes less than a year after a state judge in Santa Fe allowed the case to move forward. Attorneys for the state and top state officials, including Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, had previously filed a motion in September 2023 seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of separation of powers.
The Intercept
5 hours ago
- The Intercept
Trump Puts Lives at Risk by Revoking Emergency Abortion Guidelines for Hospitals
The Trump administration rescinded Biden-era guidance that explicitly required emergency rooms to provide abortions to pregnant patients if such care would save their lives. Medical experts expect the policy shift to sow chaos in hospitals and endanger pregnant people throughout the U.S. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's move to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration issued guidance related to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, a federal law that requires health care providers that take Medicare to provide 'stabilizing' medical treatment to all patients experiencing medical emergencies. In a 2022 letter to health care providers, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Beccerra wrote that if a doctor believes a pregnant patient at an emergency room 'is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment.' The memo also clarified that EMTALA preempts state law in cases where abortion is illegal with exceptions narrower than those in EMTALA. In a press release Tuesday, the Trump administration rescinded the older guidance, stating that the previous rules 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' The release noted that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 'will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' 'In places where doctors and hospitals are being threatened with both criminal and civil penalties for providing abortion care, it will cause a delay.' Abortion providers and experts in reproductive health argue that the vagueness of the new guidance will create uncertainty in emergency rooms, denying pregnant people equal access to care and putting lives at risk in states that have restricted or banned abortion. 'The Trump Administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive life-saving abortions,' said Nancy Northup, President and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights. 'In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance right now, not less.' The Trump administration told The Intercept that the idea that the new guidance puts lives at risk is 'false.' 'CMS will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy,' Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon wrote in a statement to The Intercept. Even before the Trump administration rescinded the Biden-era guidance, dozens of pregnant women reported being turned away for emergency medical care since the fall of Roe. A ProPublica report found that at least five women have died as a result of abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Most reproductive health care experts believe the number is far higher than what's been reported. 'We already know that women have died because physicians didn't act because of fear surrounding what they or couldn't do under certain state bans,' said Dana Sussman, senior vice president at Pregnancy Justice, a non-profit reproductive justice organization. 'We know that women have died because they have been scared to get care, because they self managed abortions. We know that more women will die, and we and there are probably women who have died, and we will never know their names.' Sussman said that the new guidance will only make it harder for hospitals to feel comfortable providing lifesaving care to pregnant people. 'I think inevitably it will create many more challenges when it comes to what hospitals are advising their physicians, what physicians feel comfortable doing in different states and and I do think that it's putting more lives,' she said. Last year, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by the Biden Administration challenging Idaho's abortion ban on the grounds that it violated EMTALA by prohibiting abortion care in too many circumstances. The court ultimately punted — refusing to add clarity — but allowing emergency abortions to go forward in the state. The Trump Department of Justice declined to continue prosecuting the Idaho case, an early signal that it planned to rescind the Biden guidance. Jamilla Perritt, an OB-GYN and abortion provider in Washington who is also president of the nonprofit Physicians for Reproductive Health, said it's important to clarify that EMTALA still stands, even if the administration has tried to muddy the waters. 'This does not change [providers] legal obligation to provide life saving care for people when they report to emergency rooms,' Perritt said. 'The other thing is that it does not change their moral and ethical obligation to do so.' The confusion caused by this announcement, however, will carry risks, argued Perritt. 'In places where doctors and hospitals are being threatened with both criminal and civil penalties for providing abortion care,' she said. 'It will cause a delay. It will give them pause.' It's striking, Perrit said, to see such policy come from an administration that has been masquerading as supportive of families. 'The federal government gets to decide who lives and who dies during pregnancy complications, during emergency events,' she said. 'The hypocrisy is really glaring, because this is the exact same government that's claiming to support children and families that want people to have more babies, but instead it is dismantling the system that protects the lives of pregnant people and their families.'
