A. J. T., By and Through Her Parents, A. T. & G. T., Petitioner v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, et al.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that students with disabilities do not have to prove school officials acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' to win a discrimination case. The Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act protect students using the same standards as any other person with a disability. This decision overturned a lower court rule that had made it much harder for students to sue for educational discrimination.

This ruling makes it easier for families to hold school districts accountable when they fail to provide necessary accommodations for students with disabilities. For example, a student with a condition like epilepsy can now seek relief without having to prove that school leaders were intentionally malicious or extremely reckless. It ensures that students have the same legal protections in the classroom that adults have in the workplace or public spaces.

For decades, some courts tried to limit student lawsuits to prevent judges from second-guessing every educational decision made by teachers. However, Congress stepped in to clarify that laws like the ADA should provide independent protections regardless of other education-specific laws. This case reaffirms that federal civil rights protections for the disabled are broad and cannot be narrowed by lower courts trying to 'harmonize' different statutes.

The Court ruled 9-0 to vacate the lower court's decision, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion about the standard for intent, while Justices Sotomayor and Jackson emphasized that discrimination often comes from thoughtlessness rather than malice.

“Congress explicitly declared that nothing in the IDEA 'shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under' the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws.”

Students with disabilities no longer face a higher burden of proof than others when claiming discrimination under federal law.

The case now returns to the lower courts, where A.J.T.’s claims will be evaluated under the standard 'deliberate indifference' test rather than the harder 'bad faith' test. School districts across the country will likely need to review their accommodation policies to ensure they meet these federal standards. Legal experts will also watch for future cases to see if the Court further defines what 'intent' is required for all disability claims.

A.J.T. has epilepsy and requested evening instruction because her seizures made morning attendance impossible. The school district provided some accommodations but refused the evening sessions, leading to a lawsuit over whether this was illegal discrimination.

Students can now sue for discrimination without proving a school acted with 'gross misjudgment.' This lowers the legal barrier for families seeking better support for conditions like epilepsy or other disabilities.

The Court ruled that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not require a heightened 'bad faith' standard for education claims. Instead, these claims are subject to the same standards used in other disability discrimination contexts.

The Supreme Court vacated (canceled) the previous ruling and remanded (sent back) the case to the lower court. The lower court must now reconsider A.J.T.'s claims using the correct, less demanding legal standard.

The ruling reinforces the idea that Congress intended for multiple federal laws to protect disabled people simultaneously. It stops courts from using one law, like the IDEA, to limit the power of others, like the ADA.