Latest news with #A.J.T.
New York Post
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Neil Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange: ‘I'm not finished'
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of 'lying' in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. 4 Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Getty Images Counsel 'should be more careful with their words,' Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. 'OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,' Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. 'Ms. Blatt,' Gorsuch told her, 'I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.' 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'OK,' she fired back. 'Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…' Gorsuch cut in, telling her, 'I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase.' 'You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–' Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. 4 Judge Neil Gorsuch is sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS 'Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,' Gorsuch said, before continuing: 'But lying is another matter.' He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. 'I'm not finished,' Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. 'Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt,' he then told her of the lying accusation. 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'Fine, I withdraw,' she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, 'I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry.'
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. Read On The Fox News App Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. "OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "OK," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…" Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase." "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. "Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter." He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."Original article source: Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Fox News
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. "Okay well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "Okay," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…" Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase." "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying—" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. "Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter." He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Grouch told her, raising his voice. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."
Fox News
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Gorscuh scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. "Okay well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied." "Okay," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…" Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase." "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying—" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. "Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter." He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. "I'm not finished," Grouch told her, raising his voice. "Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation. "Fine, I withdraw," she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."
Epoch Times
29-04-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court May Rule for Epileptic Student Alleging School Denied Special Accommodations
The Supreme Court on April 28 seemed sympathetic to an epileptic student's family that is suing a Minnesota school district, alleging that the school illegally denied special accommodation. The oral argument in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools became heated when the attorney for the district accused the other lawyers at the hearing of 'lying' about the position she was arguing, an accusation she subsequently withdrew. The U.S. solicitor general's office argued in favor of the family's position. The student, known as A.J.T. and by her first name, Ava, is suing through her parents, who are identified in court papers as A.T. and G.T. Ava suffers from Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a rare kind of epilepsy, according to the family's Ava has intellectual limitations and experiences seizures during the day. The most severe seizures happen in the morning, but after that 'she's alert and able to learn until about 6 p.m.' She also needs assistance with walking and toileting. The family argued in the petition that the school district applied a stricter test to the circumstances than was required, which would make it more difficult for the family to succeed with a claim. Related Stories 1/20/2025 5/30/2024 The family filed suit under several federal statutes, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees that all children receive a 'free appropriate public education.' The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act also provide protections for disabled individuals. Before Ava's family moved to Minnesota in 2015, her public school district in Kentucky met her needs, including home instruction late in the day. Her new school district in Minnesota, Osseo Area Schools, 'refused to accommodate her,' denying evening instruction and giving 'a series of shifting explanations,' the petition alleged. In the beginning, the district said it did not want to set a bad precedent and then later stated that educating at home 'would be too restrictive,' while at the same time saying it needed more 'data' to rationalize a 'programming change,' the petition said. In the first three years of living in Minnesota, Ava received two fewer hours of daily instruction than nondisabled students received. Ava's parents launched an IDEA complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education. An administrative law judge held that the district violated the IDEA. The judge ruled that instead of prioritizing the child's educational needs, the district was more concerned with maintaining 'the regular hours of the school's faculty.' The judge directed the district to provide evening instruction. The school district appealed to the federal district court. Around the same time, Ava's parents sued the district under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, asking for an injunction to 'permanently secure [Ava]'s rights to a full school day,' along with compensatory damages for the mistreatment she experienced, according to the petition. The federal district court affirmed the ruling in favor of Ava under the IDEA, finding that she needed 'more than 4.25 hours of schooling a day.' The court found that 'extending her instructions day until 6 p.m. and including compensatory hours of instruction' was 'the appropriate remedy' under the IDEA. However, the court ruled against Ava with regard to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, reasoning that she had failed to demonstrate that the district acted either with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' the petition said. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. After acknowledging that the family had produced evidence demonstrating that the Minnesota district had been 'negligent or even deliberately indifferent' in denying the reasonable accommodations the Kentucky district provided for years, the panel held it was 'constrained' by the circuit court's 1982 ruling in Monahan v. Nebraska that created the bad-faith-or-gross-misjudgment standard. In the Third and Ninth Circuits, the evidence Ava presented would have been strong enough to survive a motion to dismiss, but in the Eighth Circuit and four other circuits 'embracing Monahan's uniquely stringent standard,' it wasn't, the petition said. In June 2024, the full Eighth Circuit denied a request for rehearing. During the oral 'The defendant must have acted with discriminatory intent. Monahan correctly described that intent as bad faith, which is the longstanding term for actions done for an improper reason, here, disability,' the lawyer said. In the ADA, Congress 'spelled out reasonable accommodations' and 'barred damages without intent for employers and altogether for hotels and hot dog stands.' Reversing Monahan 'would expose 46,000 public schools to liability when, for 40 years, they have trained teachers, allocated budgets, and obtained insurance all in reliance on Monahan,' Blatt said. Some of the justices seemed taken aback by Blatt's suggestion that the Supreme Court should apply a tough standard in the case, an argument they said they had not anticipated. After Blatt said her side defines bad faith as 'discriminatory intent,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that 'would be a sea change' in disability discrimination lawsuits. Blatt replied it would only be 'a sea change in terms of liability.' Barrett said, 'a sea change in terms of liability is a pretty big sea change,' adding that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out during the oral argument that 'no circuit has adopted your rule.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the possibility that the district may have violated the Supreme Court's procedural rules by not adequately explaining the nature of its argument during the court's required briefing process in the lead-up to the oral argument. 'It would have been nice to have known that we were biting off that big a chunk,' the justice told Blatt. Blatt said her side's arguments had not changed. 'What is a lie and inaccurate is that we ever said in any context that this court should take the same language and define it differently depending on context. That is not true. There is no statement. They [are] adding words to our mouth,' she said. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Blatt to confirm that she believed the family's attorney, Roman Martinez, and the attorney from the U.S. solicitor general's office 'are lying.' Blatt replied, 'at oral argument, yes, absolutely.' Gorsuch told the lawyer, 'I think you should be more careful with your words, Ms. Blatt.' Blatt replied that the two other attorneys 'should be more careful in … mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect.' A few minutes later, Blatt withdrew her accusation. Martinez said Blatt acknowledged that the district is 'trying to get rid of the reasonable accommodation claims that people in this country have enjoyed for decades.' 'This is a revolutionary and radical argument that has not been made in this court and that she's trying to get you to decide on the basis of essentially no briefing.' Martinez said disability rights groups 'would have rung a five-alarm fire' if they had realized what the district was seeking. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.
