2024 Term of Court:
Two federal statutes prohibit public entities from discriminating against disabled individuals by reason of their disability, but only as long as the individuals are otherwise “qualified” to utilize the public entity’s services. See Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. §794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. §§12131 et seq. The statutes protect individuals who are “qualified” to use or to access the public entity’s services whenever the public entity can reasonably accommodate the individuals’ disabilities. An example of an accommodation frequently but not universally deemed to be “reasonable” may be the dismantling or removal of architectural barriers to wheelchair use. A third federal statute, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“the IDEA statute”), 20 U. S. C. §§1400 et seq., requires schools offering a “free public education” to children to offer each disabled child seeking admission an Individualized Education Plan (“an IEP”) that reasonably accommodates the child’s disability.
In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, US SupCt Slip Opinion of June 12, 2025, the Court unanimously ruled that the parents or guardians of disabled school children do not have to prove a school board’s “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in proposing an IEP when they sue the board for relief under one of the other two disability statutes. As the Court explained, Congress specifically amended the IDEA statute to disclaim any intent, on its part, to limit the coverage or operation of the two more generalized disability statutes as they apply to children in public schools. See 20 U. S. C. §1415(l).
Comment: The amendment to the IDEA statute at 20 U.S.C. §1415(l) basically overruled a contrary Supreme Court decision from a couple of years earlier that required a showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in disability discrimination cases for school children. The intervening amendment required the Court’s ruling in this case.
Dan D. Rhea
RECENT RULINGS 