By Tracy Waller, Esq., MPH
Refresher of the case:
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools is a major disability rights case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28, 2025. The case involved a Minnesota student with epilepsy whose school limited her instructional time. While she won services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), her claims for monetary damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act were denied.
The key issue in the case was what legal standard students must meet to win damages for disability discrimination: a higher bar of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” or a lower one of “deliberate indifference.” The Supreme Court’s decision impacted how schools nationwide are held accountable, affecting millions of students with disabilities and thousands of pending complaints.
For a more in depth overview of the case, check out our previous post “Supreme Court to Decide Standard for Proving Disability Discrimination in Schools.”
The Oral Argument: Catching a Glimpse
Oral arguments are open to the public on a first come, first serve basis. People wait in line to get in. The Court sets some restrictions on the size of bags allowed and the items you are allowed to bring into the courtroom. If you are lucky enough to wait in line and gain entry (only a few people are allowed in based on the number of seats available), you have to pass through security, and lock everything up in lockers except for a notepad and writing utensil. No food or drinks are allowed inside.
Crowds formed earlier than usual to catch a glimpse of the oral arguments for A.J.T.– likely because of the broad implications for children across the country, including those in Maryland. There is a separate line for attorneys who are members of the Supreme Court (another process), and their line gets in first. The public line gets in next. This year, the Court piloted a lottery system, which allowed members of the public to put in early to try and reserve a spot to watch the oral arguments. This lottery system further limited how many people were able to get inside from those waiting in line.
Hoping to catch the case in person, several staff members (Project HEAL attorneys and myself) of the Maryland Center for Developmental Disabilities (MCDD), as well as attorneys and advocates from the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), lined up at 6:15 a.m.. When we arrived, the public entrance viewing line already had almost 45 people in it! Oral arguments began at 10:00 a.m. A small group of people were let in around 9:00 a.m. We kept checking our watches and hoping another group would be escorted in, but we knew that if we were not in by 9:30 a.m., we would not have enough time to pass through security and lock up our required valuables in lockers. Despite our best effort, we did not make the cutoff to see the oral arguments in person; however, we were able to listen to the audio live stream in the nearby office courtyard. The Supreme Court is open for tours on non-argument days. I have been inside for an argument once, and it was a really exciting experience.
The Arguments
First, Roman Martinez, argued on behalf of Ava (A.J.T.). He was solid and knowledgeable. He was very prepared– and I was consistently impressed by his mastery of all materials related to the case as he referenced page numbers from documents that were hundreds of pages long. Next, Nicole Reaves, argued for the government. She is an assistant to the Solicitor General in the Office of the Solicitor General. She was not nearly as solid as Martinez, but she was still prepared. Lisa Blatt represented the school district. She was the most entertaining and experienced of the three. While she could also pinpoint references, she was sharp-tongued. At one point, she even claimed the other attorneys were “lying,” an assertion Justice Gorsuch would not let lie and asked her to withdraw.
It was certainly entertaining.
The Decision
On June 12, 2025, the Supreme Court released their decision, and all nine justices on the Supreme Court voted in favor of A.J.T.. The Court held that “claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” This means that ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to education do not have to meet a heightened standard. The claims they bring are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.
The Standards
For injunctive relief (court order asking to do something or not to do something), plaintiffs do not have to prove that there will be an intent to discriminate, only that there is the potential for future discrimination or harm.
For compensatory damages (or money awards): plaintiffs have to show intentional discrimination. In this case, the standard was defined as “deliberate indifference.” This means that the plaintiff needs to “prove the defendant disregarded a ‘strong likelihood’ that the challenged action would ‘result in a violation of federally protected rights.’” Basically, this means that the plaintiff needs to prove the defendant knew the plaintiff needed help, but did not want to or did not care enough to fix it.
