Oral Argument: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 | Date Argued: 4/28/25

Case Info: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 | Date Argued: 4/28/25 Link to Docket: Here . Background: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross misjudgment." That test squarely implicates an entrenched and acknowledged 5-2 circuit split over the standard governing such claims. It is also plainly mistaken on the merits: As the Eighth Circuit itself acknowledged, the test lacks "any anchor in statutory text," App.5a n.2, and it arbitrarily departs from the more lenient standards that all courts-including the Eighth Circuit-apply to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims brought by plaintiffs outside the school setting. Question Presented: Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education. Holding: 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. Result: Vacated and remanded. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined. Link to Opinion: Here . Oral Advocates: For Petitioner: Roman Martinez For the United States, as Amicus Curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General For Respondents: Lisa S. Blatt Host Note: This is probably the sauciest oral argument I've heard this term. Respondent's counsel accuses Petitioner of lying and of asking the Court to consider "uniquely stupid standards." Respondent's counsel also accused the Supreme Court of routinely remanding cases without setting the law. All of these statements clearly made the justices uncomfortable. I included timestamps for these exchanges. Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 00:07 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins 2:04 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin 18:06 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin 23:04 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins 24:29 Government Free for All Questions Begin 33:42 Government Sequential Questions Begin 45:17 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins 47:16 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin 50:26 Respondent alleges that Petitioner lied and made inaccurate statements about Respondent’s position 50:55 Justice Gorsuch tells Respondent to be more careful with her words with respect to alleging that Petitioner lied 52:03 Respondent states that Petitioner asks the court to adopt “uniquely stupid standards.” 1:03:17 Justice Jackson and Respondent debate whether 504 and Title II require reasonable accommodations 1:04:31 Respondent admonishes the Supreme Court for sometimes “just remand[ing] and saying we just remand” and for not “set[ting] the law.” 1:05:01 Justice Gorsuch tells Respondent that he’s troubled by Respondent’s “suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied[]” and asks Respondent “to reconsider that phrase.” Respondent backtracks and says that Petitioner is incorrect. 1:07:24 Justice Gorsuch asks Respondent to withdraw her accusation that Petitioner lied. Respondent obliges. 1:16:23 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin 1:22:38 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Reply Begins