Latest news with #OsseoAreaSchools
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Yahoo
SCOTUS to Rule in Case That Could Upend Enforcement of Disabled Students' Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case that could prove seismic for students with disabilities who claim their schools have discriminated against them. If the family that brought the original lawsuit loses, cases filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the portion of the law that governs many in-school accommodations — could become extraordinarily difficult to win. A ruling in favor of Osseo Area Schools, located in suburban Minneapolis, would mean students who claim their rights were violated will have to prove their school systems acted in 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' — a higher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which the law requires in other disability discrimination cases. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter An estimated 1.5 million public school students receive disability accommodations under the ADA, ranging from modified academic materials — such as simplifying a text or supplying curriculum via a specialized device — to making classrooms, bathrooms and other school spaces accessible to wheelchair users and others. The law governs accessibility, while disabled children's educational rights are guaranteed by a different measure, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Teenager Ava Tharpe has a severe form of epilepsy that causes frequent seizures during the morning. While planning to move from Kentucky to Minnesota in 2015, when she was in fourth grade, her parents sought out a school district that would agree to start her classes at noon and extend them into the evening. After the family relocated, the district reneged, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. When the Supreme Court accepted the case, the district's position had consistently been that disability discrimination suits had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent. Osseo argued that the legal standard, which plaintiffs have been held to in some federal court circuits but not others, applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before the April 28 hearing, the district widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. 'The statutes do not impose liability for nondiscriminatory, good-faith denials of requested accommodations,' the document asserts, adding that the high court 'should not subject America's 100,000 public schools and countless other state and local entities and federal-funding recipients' to the deliberate indifference standard. The hearing erupted in verbal fireworks after the district's attorney accused the lawyers representing the federal government, which has sided with the family, of 'lying' in saying that the district had shifted its argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch snapped back, and several minutes of heated debate ensued. Later in the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' according to an account posted by SCOTUS Blog, which also reported Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was 'all but incredulous' that the district argued that the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. Osseo officials declined to comment on the case, citing Tharpe's right to privacy. 'The school district educates nearly 21,000 students, including 3,000 students with disabilities who have the right to education from birth through age 22,' it said in a comment to The 74. 'We're committed to the principles and the ideals expressed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.' The Tharpe family initially filed a complaint with state education officials under the IDEA, which guarantees disabled pupils a 'free and appropriate public education.' Noting that the girl had a right to a full school day, even if it extended into the evening, a state administrative law judge found that Ava's educational rights had been violated. When the district appealed that ruling in federal district court, the family filed a second suit under the ADA. In March 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the family's IDEA rights had been violated. But the appellate court rejected the ADA discrimination claim, ruling the Tharpes had not proven the district acted in bad faith. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling should not impact IDEA, which governs whether children with disabilities are entitled to special education services enabling them to make adequate progress toward their goals. By contrast, the ADA requires equal access to school and an equal opportunity to learn once they are there, explains Ellen Saideman, one of the authors of a friend of the court brief submitted by the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys and several other disability advocacy groups. They argue that a ruling in the district's favor would unfairly subject schoolchildren to a much higher legal bar than other people who need accommodations. To illustrate the difference, she cites a 2004 ADA case, Tennessee vs. Lane, brought by someone who had to crawl up the stairs to get into a Tennessee courthouse that didn't have an elevator. Under the 'gross misjudgment' standard, there wouldn't be a claim. 'The building was built before the ADA was passed, so it wasn't built with any discriminatory intent,' says Saideman. 'Under deliberate indifference, they know a person has a disability and there are other people who have disabilities who can't go up the stairs. If they don't fix it, then there could be a claim.' One of the ADA's original drafters, former Rep. Tony Coelho of California, also submitted a brief arguing that Congress' intent was that families of disabled children have 'the same rights, no more, no less, that are provided all other groups … including the right to seek relief under Section 504 [and] the ADA.' A decision is expected in June or July, near the end of the court's current term.
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."
