chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
    June 16, 2025

    Disability Rights Lawyers React to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

    On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, holding that students who bring discrimination claims against schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The ABA Commission on Disability Rights reached out to lawyers practicing disability rights for comment. Below are their responses.

    Catherine Merino Reisman, Partner, Reisman Gran Zuba LLP

    “The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in A.J.T. establishes unequivocally that courts cannot burden school children with a higher standard of proof to vindicate their rights under the ADA and Section 504. The Court delivered a decisive and much-needed repudiation of the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard announced in Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1982). This ruling is a significant step forward in protecting the civil rights of students with disabilities.”

    Michael Gilberg, Special Education Lawyer

    “Today's unanimous Supreme Court ruling is a win for special education families around the country. It's gratifying to see in this time of extreme partisanship that the Court agreed unanimously that students with disabilities and their families should not face a higher standard—bad faith or gross misjudgment—when proving discrimination. This brings education in line with other forms of disability discrimination by requiring that the families simply show the school district disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would result in a violation of their rights. This ruling sends a clear message that school districts can and should be held accountable when their actions have discriminatory effects on a child, even if driven by poor judgment rather than malicious intent.”

    Ellen Saideman, Disability Rights Lawyer

    “For the third time in eight years—Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) (ruling that a student is not required to exhaust procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) procedures before suing for damages under the ADA or Section 504 if the gravamen of the claim is disability discrimination rather than failure to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA); Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (2023) (ruling that a student can seek monetary damages under the ADA and Section 504 after settling an IDEA claim); and A.J.T v. Osseo Area Schools (2024) (ruling that plaintiffs bringing ADA and Section 504 claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts)— the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned appellate court rulings that limited the rights of students with disabilities under the ADA and Section 504. These decisions make clear that school districts must comply not only with the IDEA, but also with the broader mandates of the ADA and Section 504—or risk liability for damages.”

    Judith A. Gran, Partner, Reisman Gran Zuba LLP

    “It's a significant decision that will have a real-world impact on children with disabilities. It's equally significant that, like the Court's two previous decisions in cases on behalf of children with disabilities, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017) (ruling that raised the standard for what constitutes a FAPE under the IDEA) and  Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023), it was unanimous. That sends a positive message to the lower courts, which too often defer thoughtlessly to school districts.”

    Topic:
    The material in all ABA publications is copyrighted and may be reprinted by permission only. Request reprint permission here.