On June 12, 2025, the United States Supreme Court published a 9-0 decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. The decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and resolved a circuit split over whether plaintiffs alleging discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act relating to their education are subject to a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” In contrast, those seeking injunctive relief based on discrimination in the non-education context, are only required to show “deliberate indifference.” The heightened standard originated in the Eighth Circuit in 1982, and essentially required a showing of personal ill will or animosity toward the disabled person where education claims were at issue.
“We hold today that ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”
Holding that education-related claims should not be treated differently than non-education claims is in line with a legislative change Congress previously made, explicitly stating that nothing in the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under” the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabled children’s rights.”
Facts of the Case
The student on whose behalf the case was brought suffered seizures, which made it difficult for her to attend school before noon. Until age 10, her school district provided accommodations, including providing evening instruction so that she had 6.5 hours of school each day. When she changed school districts in 2015, the new district refused to provide evening instruction. Between 2015 and 2018, the student received only 4.25 hours of school each day.
The student’s parents filed an IDEA complaint with the school district, alleging that their child had been denied a free and appropriate public education. On April 21, 2021, the administrative law judge hearing the case ruled in the student’s favor and the school district was ordered to provide several hundred hours of compensatory education, including at home instruction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on March 21, 2024.
The parents then sued the school district in federal court under Title II of the ADA, seeking a permanent injunction, reimbursement for costs, and compensatory damages. The federal district court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the student and parents failed to show that the school district acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. The parents appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed based on prior precedent holding that failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was not enough to state a prima facie case of discrimination.
The United States Supreme Court, hearing the case on appeal, rejected the higher standard courts had applied to discrimination claims concerning education services. Based on this ruling, students and parents seeking relief under the ADA in relation to education services should face the same burden in litigation as an individual in a wheelchair alleging discrimination based on a lack of accessibility.
A Word of Warning
A concurring opinion written by Justice Thoms, and joined by Justice Kavanaugh, contained some ominous words about whether federal courts were applying the correct legal standard even to non-education-related claims. The implication being that they may support the position that all discrimination claims brought under Title II or Section 504 require a showing of intentional discrimination. Notably, the concurrence stated, “Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance, and the District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.”
The Court’s full opinion can be read here.