A ruling in favor of Osseo Area Schools, located in suburban Minneapolis, would mean students who claim their rights were violated will have to prove their school systems acted in 鈥渂ad faith or gross misjudgment鈥� 鈥� a higher standard than 鈥渄eliberate indifference,鈥� which the law requires in other disability discrimination cases. 

An estimated 1.5 million public school students receive disability accommodations under the ADA, ranging from modified academic materials 鈥� such as simplifying a text or supplying curriculum via a specialized device 鈥� to making classrooms, bathrooms and other school spaces accessible to wheelchair users and others. The law governs accessibility, while disabled children鈥檚 educational rights are guaranteed by a different measure, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.    

Teenager Ava Tharpe has a severe form of epilepsy that causes frequent seizures during the morning. While planning to move from Kentucky to Minnesota in 2015, when she was in fourth grade, a school district that would agree to start her classes at noon and extend them into the evening. After the family relocated, the district reneged, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. 

When the Supreme Court , the district鈥檚 position had consistently been that disability discrimination suits had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent. that the legal standard, which plaintiffs have been held to in some federal court circuits but not others, applied only to K-12 students.

But in the brief it submitted before the April 28 hearing, the district , saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. 

鈥淭he statutes do not impose liability for nondiscriminatory, good-faith denials of requested accommodations,鈥� the document asserts, adding that the high court 鈥渟hould not subject America鈥檚 100,000 public schools and countless other state and local entities and federal-funding recipients鈥� to the deliberate indifference standard. 

The hearing erupted in verbal fireworks after the district鈥檚 attorney accused the lawyers representing the federal government, which has sided with the family, of 鈥渓ying鈥� in saying that the district had shifted its argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch snapped back, and several minutes of heated debate ensued. 

Later in the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district鈥檚 shift as 鈥渁 pretty big sea change,鈥� according to posted by SCOTUS Blog, which also reported Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was 鈥渁ll but incredulous鈥� that the district argued that the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. 

Osseo officials declined to comment on the case, citing Tharpe鈥檚 right to privacy. 鈥淭he school district educates nearly 21,000 students, including 3,000 students with disabilities who have the right to education from birth through age 22,鈥� it said in a comment to 社区黑料. 鈥淲e’re committed to the principles and the ideals expressed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”

The Tharpe family initially filed a complaint with state education officials under the IDEA, which guarantees disabled pupils a 鈥渇ree and appropriate public education.鈥� Noting that the girl had a right to a full school day, even if it extended into the evening, a state administrative law judge found that Ava鈥檚 educational rights had been violated. 

When the district appealed that ruling in federal district court, the family filed a second suit under the ADA. In March 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the family鈥檚 IDEA rights had been violated. But the appellate court rejected the ADA discrimination claim, ruling the Tharpes had not proven the district acted in bad faith.

The Supreme Court鈥檚 eventual ruling should not impact IDEA, which governs whether children with disabilities are entitled to special education services enabling them to make adequate progress toward their goals.

By contrast, the ADA requires equal access to school and an equal opportunity to learn once they are there, explains Ellen Saideman, one of the authors of a submitted by the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys and several other disability advocacy groups. They argue that a ruling in the district鈥檚 favor would unfairly subject schoolchildren to a much higher legal bar than other people who need accommodations. 

To illustrate the difference, she cites a 2004 ADA case, , brought by someone who had to crawl up the stairs to get into a Tennessee courthouse that didn鈥檛 have an elevator. Under the “gross misjudgment” standard, there wouldn’t be a claim.

鈥淭he building was built before the ADA was passed, so it wasn’t built with any discriminatory intent,鈥� says Saideman. 鈥淯nder deliberate indifference, they know a person has a disability and there are other people who have disabilities who can’t go up the stairs. If they don’t fix it, then there could be a claim.鈥�

One of the ADA鈥檚 original drafters, former Rep. Tony Coelho of California, also submitted a brief that Congress鈥� intent was that families of disabled children have 鈥渢he same rights, no more, no less, that are provided all other groups 鈥� including the right to seek relief under Section 504 [and] the ADA.鈥�

鈥嬧�婣 decision is expected in June or July, near the end of the court鈥檚 current term.