A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 17 Jan 2025

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." App.3a. 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. The question presented is: 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.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The US Supreme Court case involves a dispute between A.J.T., a student, and Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279. The central issue revolves around the school's disciplinary actions against A.J.T., who was penalized for alleged misconduct that occurred off-campus but had repercussions within the school environment. The court examined whether the school's decision to discipline A.J.T. violated his First Amendment rights or exceeded its authority under existing educational policies and precedents set by previous cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Osseo Area Schools, determining that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus behavior when it significantly disrupts school operations or infringes on other students' rights.