A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279.
The Supreme Court reviewed a case involving A. J. T., a student with epilepsy, whose parents alleged that her school district violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by not providing evening instruction. The Eighth Circuit had required a showing of 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for such claims. The Court vacated and remanded the decision, clarifying that educational discrimination claims under these statutes do not require a heightened intent standard.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279.
The Court held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of 'bad faith or gross misjudgment.'
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279
The case involves claims of discrimination based on disability, which is analyzed under the framework of equal protection.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act 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.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279
The Court's analysis touches on the rights of disabled children to receive appropriate educational accommodations, implicating substantive due process protections.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The plain text of § 1415(l) accordingly 'makes clear that nothing in the IDEA 'restrict[s] or limit[s] the rights [or] remedies' that other federal laws, including antidiscrimination statutes, confer on children with disabilities.'
-
Why Spending Power is relevant to A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279
The case involves the IDEA, a federal statute enacted under Congress's spending power, which conditions the receipt of federal funds on providing a free appropriate public education.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq., 'offers federal funds to States in exchange for a commitment: to furnish' the core guarantee of a 'free appropriate public education' . . .
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 that support the summary and concepts above.
Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of 'bad faith or gross misjudgment.'
The bad faith or gross misjudgment rule derived from Monahan is irreconcilable with the unambiguous directive of § 1415(l).
Nothing in the text of the applicable substantive protections or remedial provisions of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that claims based on educational services should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis.