Supreme Court Holds ADA and Rehabilitation Act Lawsuits Against Public Schools Need Not Clear Higher Bar

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools that students bringing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act lawsuits against public schools should not face a higher standard of proof than plaintiffs bringing discrimination lawsuits against other institutions. This decision reversed an Eighth Circuit order affirming summary judgment to Osseo Area Schools in a discrimination lawsuit brought by a Minnesota student who required scheduling accommodations to deal with severe epilepsy and cognitive deficits.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Eighth Circuit was applying a heightened standard to public schools that it established more than 40 years ago in Monahan v. Nebraska. The Monahan decision required plaintiffs to prove that public school officials’ conduct rose to the level of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to establish discrimination in the provision of educational services. The decision imposed a higher burden on plaintiffs bringing suit against public schools, as ADA and Rehabilitation Act cases generally imposed a lower threshold for such claims, requiring a showing of “deliberate indifference” to establish a disability discrimination claim. “Deliberate indifference” requires only a showing that the defendant disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate protected rights. Even the Eighth Circuit panel that originally affirmed summary judgment for Osseo Area Schools questioned why a heightened standard was required for suits against public schools, even though it concluded it was bound to follow the Monahan precedent.

The Monahan court’s logic was grounded in its attempt to “balance the rights of handicapped children, the responsibilities of state educational officials, and the competence of courts to make judgments in technical fields.” Monahan’s “balancing” was made possible by its interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA is meant to ensure students with disabilities are provided with a “free appropriate public education” tailored to their individual needs. At the time of the Monahan ruling, it was unclear whether the IDEA, the ADA, or the Rehabilitation Act was intended to be the predominant mechanism for plaintiffs to bring discrimination suits against schools. In the absence of concrete legislative guidance, the court, in Monahan, presumed the IDEA was meant to be the primary recourse for plaintiffs in the education context. The “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard thus served as a limitation on plaintiffs’ ability to bring suit under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act in situations where the IDEA is also triggered. 

Monahan was not the only case in which this conclusion was drawn, nor is the Eighth Circuit the only circuit that had being applying the heightened standard. The Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits also adopted the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard.¹

In 2004, Congress tied up this legislative loose end by amending the IDEA to explicitly state that it should not be “construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies,” available under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and other applicable laws. In the opinion, Justice Roberts argued that the amendment by Congress was intended to reconcile the anti-discrimination statutes with the IDEA. Despite the amendment, the Eighth Circuit continued applying the heightened Monahan standard, as did the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits. The school district argued that this was the correct result because Monahan derived the heighted standard from the Rehabilitation Act. But when confronted with Eighth Circuit decisions holding otherwise, it argued to the Court the higher standard was “the correct standard across the board,” and that later ADA and Rehabilitation Act cases incorrectly set a lower bar. The Court concluded that this new argument was not properly before it, and thus set a unified standard consistent with existing law regarding the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Osseo will likely result in increased litigation in circuits that have been applying the heightened standard to discrimination lawsuits against public schools. Schools should be aware of the changing legal landscape and be sure to diligently work with their disabled students to find reasonable accommodations.