On Monday, April 28, 2025, a rare and heated exchange unfolded at the Supreme Court during oral arguments in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, which centers on disability discrimination in public schools. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded attorney Lisa Blatt for accusing the plaintiffs of lying, a move that surprised many court-watchers and sparked significant discussion online.
The case revolves around whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. At the heart of the matter is Ava Tharpe, a teenage girl with severe epilepsy, whose family has sued the Osseo Area School District near Minneapolis for refusing to provide at-home schooling during the morning hours, a service that they argue is necessary for her condition.
During the oral arguments, Blatt, representing the school district, made the controversial claim that the plaintiffs were misrepresenting the district's stance, leading to Gorsuch's sharp rebuke. "Counsel should be more careful with their words," he warned, expressing his discomfort with the accusation of lying. This exchange marked a significant moment in the court's proceedings, highlighting the tensions surrounding the legal standards for disability discrimination.
The Tharpe family contends that their request for evening instruction was unjustly denied, leaving Ava with only 65 percent of the instructional hours her peers received. They argue that federal law requires schools to show "deliberate indifference" rather than the higher standard of "bad faith" as asserted by the school district.
In previous rulings, an administrative law judge found that the school district had violated federal law, noting that the district's primary concern was maintaining regular faculty hours rather than accommodating Ava's educational needs. However, the lower courts later sided with the school district, establishing that the Tharpe family must prove either "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment" on the part of the school.
Roman Martinez, the attorney for the Tharpe family, argued that the school district's position could revolutionize disability law, stripping protections from vulnerable individuals and undermining the reasonable accommodations necessary for equal opportunity. He stated, "This line of reasoning would gut the reasonable accommodations needed for equal opportunity."
Nicole F. Reaves, representing the federal government, echoed these concerns, labeling the school district's argument as "breathtakingly broad." She emphasized that accepting the higher standard could make it significantly more difficult for individuals with disabilities to bring forward claims of discrimination.
Conversely, Blatt defended the school district's position, asserting that a ruling against the district could expose 46,000 public schools to liability. She argued that for 40 years, schools have relied on the "bad faith" standard in their operations, and changing the legal requirements could jeopardize federal funding, which amounts to over a hundred billion dollars. "Every good-faith disagreement would risk liability or even the nuclear option, the loss of federal funding," she warned.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both expressed skepticism about the implications of the school district's argument. Jackson questioned whether the "bad faith" standard should apply universally, while Barrett pointed out that such a change would represent a significant shift in liability standards.
The tension in the courtroom escalated as Gorsuch pressed Blatt to withdraw her accusation of lying against the opposing counsel. After a prolonged back-and-forth, she reluctantly agreed, stating, "Fine, I withdraw." This exchange not only highlighted the contentious nature of the arguments but also the importance of maintaining decorum in the court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns about the potential violation of court rules regarding misstatements of law or facts, further complicating the proceedings. Blatt maintained that the school district had not shifted its position, arguing that their filings were necessary to defend their victory in lower appeals.
The case has garnered considerable attention, with legal experts and advocates closely monitoring its developments. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for disability rights across the country, especially concerning the standards by which discrimination claims are evaluated in educational settings.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, a decision is expected by the end of the court's term, typically concluding in late June or early July. The stakes are high, not just for the Tharpe family but also for the broader landscape of disability rights in America.
The Supreme Court's handling of this case could redefine the legal framework surrounding disability accommodations, potentially influencing how educational institutions across the nation approach the needs of students with disabilities. As advocates for disability rights await the court's decision, the implications of this case will undoubtedly resonate throughout the legal community and beyond.
