Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden of Proof for Disability Discrimination Claims Against K-12 Schools

Ava Tharpe, a Minnesota teenager with a severe form of epilepsy known as Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, could not safely attend school before noon due to intense and frequent morning seizures. To ensure she received a full day of learning, her parents requested an adjusted schedule that extended into the early evening. The 18,600-student Osseo Area school district refused the accommodation, resulting in Ava receiving only 4.25 hours of daily instruction—significantly less than the 6.5 hours provided to her peers without disabilities. The district argued that state law did not require a modified schedule, that home instruction might be too restrictive, and that providing longer hours could set an unsustainable precedent for the school system.[1]

The family's subsequent legal battle exposed a deep fracture in how federal courts handle civil rights claims for children. The Tharpes initially filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the primary federal special education law that governs how schools design individualized education programs. An administrative law judge ruled in their favor, finding that the district had denied Ava a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and ordering the school to provide compensatory education to make up for the lost time.[1][4]

However, the IDEA is fundamentally designed to provide educational services, not to award monetary damages for the harm caused by discrimination. To seek financial restitution for the years of lost instruction and the out-of-pocket costs incurred by hiring private support specialists, the family filed a separate lawsuit. They sued the district under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, two sweeping civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination in federally funded programs and public entities.[1][4]

When the family sought damages under the ADA and Section 504, they hit a nearly insurmountable legal wall. Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit dismissed their civil rights claims. The courts cited a 1982 precedent, Monahan v. Nebraska, which established that students suing schools for disability discrimination had to prove that officials acted with "bad faith or gross misjudgment." Because the Osseo district's refusal to provide evening hours was deemed a standard administrative disagreement rather than an act of malice, the family's claims were denied.[2][4]

The 8th Circuit's application of the "bad faith" standard created a stark geographic disparity in civil rights protections. In several federal circuits, students with disabilities were forced to meet this uniquely stringent burden of proof. Meanwhile, plaintiffs in other parts of the country—and adults suing for workplace or housing discrimination—only had to prove "deliberate indifference," meaning the institution knew about a violation and failed to act. Disability rights advocates argued that this framework effectively established a two-tiered justice system that artificially shielded school districts from liability.[5][6]

The legal friction centered on how the IDEA interacts with broader civil rights laws. For decades, some lower courts assumed that because the IDEA provides a specific framework for resolving special education disputes, Congress intended to limit the use of the ADA and Section 504 in school settings. By requiring proof of "bad faith," these courts attempted to prevent parents from turning every routine disagreement over an individualized education program into a high-stakes federal discrimination lawsuit.[2][6]

In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to resolve the circuit split, delivering a unanimous 9-0 decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts struck down the "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard, declaring that K-12 students must not be held to a higher burden of proof than any other plaintiff alleging disability discrimination. The ruling firmly aligned education-related claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act with the standard used in all other disability civil rights contexts.[1][3]

The Court's rationale rested on a strict textualist reading of the federal statutes. Chief Justice Roberts noted that nothing in the text of the ADA or Section 504 justifies a "distinct, more demanding analysis" simply because the alleged discrimination occurred within a public school. The justices rejected the notion that the existence of the IDEA implicitly limits the independent rights and remedies provided by broader anti-discrimination laws, pointing to a 1984 congressional amendment that explicitly preserved those parallel protections.[3][4]

During oral arguments, the justices expressed skepticism toward the school district's position, noting that the "bad faith" standard effectively required families to prove an ulterior motive or extraordinary neglect. The unanimous opinion clarified that discrimination against people with disabilities often results from thoughtlessness or bureaucratic inertia rather than overt malice. By dismantling the judicially created barrier, the Court affirmed that students do not shed their standard civil rights protections when they enter the classroom.[1][3]

For school district administrators and their legal counsel, the ruling raised immediate concerns about financial exposure. Education groups had previously warned the Court that lowering the liability threshold to "deliberate indifference" could expose cash-strapped public schools to costly litigation and monetary damages over complex, good-faith disagreements regarding special education services. Attorneys representing districts acknowledge that the decision will likely increase the volume and scope of civil rights lawsuits filed by frustrated parents seeking financial restitution.[1][6]

Despite these administrative anxieties, legal experts note that "deliberate indifference" remains a substantial legal hurdle. Parents cannot simply claim that a school made a mistake or designed a suboptimal education plan; they must prove that the district was aware of a serious need and intentionally ignored it. When educators design special education services specific to a child's needs, the concept of discrimination does not automatically apply just because the parents disagree with the outcome.[4][6]

Ultimately, the decision marks a watershed moment for the 8 million children covered by federal special education laws. By untangling the remedies available under the IDEA from the civil rights protections of the ADA and Section 504, the Supreme Court has ensured that schools can be held financially accountable when they ignore the serious needs of disabled students. While the ruling is technically narrow in its focus on the standard of proof, its practical impact fundamentally reshapes the balance of power between families and school districts in the pursuit of equal educational access.[5][6]