Immediate Impressions of the Supreme Court's Decision Today in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools by Perry A. Zirkel

This case arose when a school district refused to provide additional instruction during the early evening to a special education student with a rare form of epilepsy that prevented her from attending school until midday due to severe, successive seizures each morning.  The parents filed for a due process hearing, and the ensuing litigation reached the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of the parents under the IDEA, concluding that the child was entitled to compensatory education and a revision in the IEP to provide the additional instruction based on the district’s FAPE obligation.  However, in a separate ruling, the Eighth Circuit rejected the parents’ alternative claim under Section 504 and the IDEA for not only further injunctive relief but also money damages because parents failed to prove that the district’s refusal amounted to bad faith or gross misjudgment.  The parents sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed on January 17, 2025 to take the case and which issued its decision earlier today, June 12, 2025.

The Court’s decision was unanimous and carefully circumscribed.  However, while agreeing with the relatively narrow scope of the decision, two separate concurring opinions encouraged opposite views for bordering issues under Section 504 and the ADA.  The concurrence by Justices Thomas and Cavanaugh signaled their receptivity to a heightened, intent-based standard for Sec. 504/ADA claims for both injunctive and monetary relief.  On the opposite side, the concurrence by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson signaled their receptivity to a no-intent standard for both forms of relief.  The remaining five-Justice majority did not join either concurrence, rather agreeing only on answering the relatively narrow question that the petitioning parents raised.

1. What the Court clearly decided:

Schoolchildren bringing Section 504 and ADA claims relating to their education do not have to show bad faith or gross misjudgment.  Instead, these claims are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.

2. What the Court assumed but did not specifically address:

The prevailing standards (in most but not all lower courts) under Section 504 and the ADA in other disability contexts are (a) “no intent” for injunctive relief and (b) “deliberate indifference” for money damages.

3. What the Court explicitly did not decide:

• Whether bad faith or gross misjudgment should be the standard across the board, i.e., for both injunctive relief and money damages?

4. What the Court implicitly did not decide:

• Whether deliberate indifference is the applicable standard for money damages and, perhaps, for injunctive relief?
• Whether any heightened standard applies to claims for injunctive relief (or even claims for money damages)?

5. What are some likely practical implications?

• More claims in the K-12 school context under Section 504 and the ADA by students with either IEPs or 504 plans
• More district liability for such claims in the majority of jurisdictions, including the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT), Fourth Circuit (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV), Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX), Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN), and Eighth Circuit (AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD), that had adopted the bad faith or gross misjudgment standard
• More awareness that for Sec. 504/ADA claims, (a) the advantage in some states is a longer statute of limitations than under the IDEA but (b) the limitation in all states is that any resulting money damages awards do not extend to emotional distress
• More litigation concerning the questions not specifically addressed in the Supreme Court’s decision in this case (i.e., the issues identified in items 3 and 4 above)