Supreme Court Oral Arguments · scotusstats.com

[24-249] A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279

·1 hr 26 min·5 clips

Mr. Martinez warns that the District's new test could gut protections for 44 million Americans with disabilities.

This episode features oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case *A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools*, concerning disability discrimination in education. The petitioner's attorney, Mr. Martinez, argues against a unique legal standard for schoolchildren, while Assistant to the Solicitor General Ms. Reeves represents the United States as amicus supporting the petitioner. The core dispute is whether students with disabilities must meet a stricter legal test to sue schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The school district initially defended the "Monahan test," a two-tiered approach from the Eighth Circuit that applied a heightened "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard specifically to children in the education context. Mr. Martinez states the district has now conceded that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act apply the same standards to all plaintiffs, abandoning its defense of that unique test. He argues the district is now improperly advancing a new, broader theory that an intent requirement applies to *all* plaintiffs under these statutes, not just students. Ms. Reeves emphasizes that no Court of Appeals has ever adopted the rule that intent to discriminate is required for all claims, which would eliminate reasonable accommodation claims. The justices probe the differences between legal standards like "deliberate indifference" and "bad faith," and question why several circuit courts have maintained the *Monahan* precedent despite a 1990 statutory amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1415( *l* ), which states the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) should not limit rights under other laws. A surprising claim is that the respondent school district successfully argued for the *Monahan* standard to avoid en banc review in the Eighth Circuit, but now calls it "indefensible" before the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor questions where any intent requirement like "bad faith" or "deliberate indifference" originates in the statutory text, noting the law typically cares about whether an act was done knowingly. An interesting moment occurs when Mr. Martinez references Justice Sotomayor's prior opinion in *Cinnamon Hills* to explain the theory of reasonable accommodation claims without requiring animus. Justice Barrett questions why, if the *Monahan* standard is so clearly wrong, multiple circuit courts have not overturned it on their own. The justices also explore the practical differences between the IDEA, which guarantees a free appropriate public education, and the anti-discrimination statutes. Justice Alito asks whether the financial burdens imposed by the ADA's reasonable accommodation mandate differ substantially from those under the IDEA. Ms. Reeves argues the "reasonable" limitation is baked into the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, allowing schools to defend accommodations as too costly or fundamentally altering. The tone is highly technical, educational, and Socratic, characteristic of Supreme Court oral arguments, with justices actively questioning attorneys to probe legal doctrines and hypothetical scenarios. Listeners interested in civil rights law, disability rights, statutory interpretation, or Supreme Court procedure would find this episode compelling. Those seeking narrative storytelling or casual conversation might find the dense legal analysis less engaging.

As heard by us

A tightly argued disability case that could reshape how school access claims are analyzed.

The case turns on whether the district can keep its win after conceding Ava's point. The district now accepts that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act share the same legal standard for all plaintiffs, so the fight narrows to whether a stricter test can still govern school…

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Hear the Court test whether school disability claims should face a stricter rule.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Supreme Court Oral Arguments