Authors’ note: The disability community is rapidly evolving to use identity-first language in place of person-first language. This is because it views disability as being a core component of identity, much like race and gender. Some members of the community, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, prefer person-first language. In this column, the terms are used interchangeably.
The first few months of the second Trump administration have been rife with threats to the disability community. Executive orders and other administrative actions have caused significant confusion and cuts to vital services that disabled people rely on, including community health programs and support services. Nonprofit organizations may soon be forced to cut back on services, state programs have shut down as government funding cuts go into effect, and the administration and Congress are threatening Medicaid and Social Security benefits and services that support the disability community.
Students with disabilities have been particularly hard hit by these harmful executive actions. On March 11, 2025, the Trump administration slashed the U.S. Department of Education’s workforce by nearly 50 percent. This decision will erode students’ civil rights, create barriers to educational equity, and reduce protections for disabled students. The decimation of much of the department’s Office for Civil Rights staff will mean that the families of disabled students have little to no recourse if their children face discrimination in school.
Now, the Trump administration wants to eliminate the Department of Education entirely, issuing an executive order that unlawfully directs the department to close. Approximately 7.5 million students with disabilities are served by public K-12 schools across the United States—a figure that has steadily increased over the past few decades. During the 2022-23 school year, disabled students accounted for 15 percent of total public school enrollment nationwide. Dismantling the Department of Education would make it more difficult for disabled students to receive a free, appropriate public education in the most integrated settings, as entitled to them by law.
In the midst of these attacks on disabled students’ access to education, on April 28, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in A.J.T v. Osseo Area Schools, a landmark case that could make it harder for students with disabilities to sue their schools for discrimination. This case has huge implications for disability rights in education, as a ruling in favor of the school district could limit disabled students’ ability to hold schools accountable for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
What is this case about, and how did it get to the Supreme Court?
A.J.T. asks whether students need to show that their school acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to obtain relief for discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The student bringing this case, A.J.T., has severe epilepsy and cannot go to school before noon, as she often has seizures in the morning. A.J.T.’s parents requested that her school district, Osseo Area Schools in Minnesota, organize evening classes, so that A.J.T. will not fall behind her classmates. The district refused, arguing that it did not need to provide that accommodation, instead offering options that would mean less time with classmates, such as intensive one-on-one instruction and summer teaching sessions. A.J.T. and her parents then sued the school district before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Both the district and circuit court sided with the school district due to harmful precedent set in Monahan v. Nebraska, requiring students to show that school officials exhibited “bad faith or gross misjudgment” when challenging discrimination. This heightened standard is the subject of a circuit split: Five circuit courts require students to meet the higher standard, while two do not. The Monahan standard sets the bar extremely high for students, as it is difficult to prove bad faith or gross misjudgment.
Importantly, nowhere else in the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act are individuals with disabilities required to meet such a strict standard; this carve-out solely applies to students suing their schools. Other plaintiffs suing to obtain compensatory damages for discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act need only show that the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference,” which Osseo Area Schools conceded is a “less-demanding” standard. These differing standards matter because as the 8th Circuit made clear: “A.J.T. may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that’s just not enough.”
It is unclear why students facing educational discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act need to meet the restrictive Monahan standard. A Supreme Court decision siding with the school district could result in a nationwide standard for ADA and Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims that makes it unduly difficult for students to sue their schools. Due to the circuit court split, the Monahan standard applies in some regions but not others, but a Supreme Court ruling approving the standard could mean that students nationwide need to show bad faith or gross misjudgment.
At their core, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act aim to eliminate discrimination, not facilitate it. Civil rights protections in education are vital to ensuring that students with disabilities are not left behind. The school district’s refusal to provide A.J.T.’s requested recommendation should not be the reason that she has to repeat grades or receive a materially worse education than her peers.
If you would like to tune into oral arguments, you can do so via this link. Arguments will begin at approximately 10:00 a.m. EDT on April 28. To read more about this case, see A.J.T.’s and Osseo Area Schools’ briefs. The full docket can be found here.
Conclusion
Weakening students’ ability to sue their schools under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act will threaten disabled students’ access to education, undermining their ability to pursue higher education, find jobs, and live independently. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act aim to increase access for people with disabilities and enable them to enjoy “the same opportunities as everyone else.” If the Supreme Court decides that students nationwide need to meet the prohibitive Monahan standard, disabled students’ opportunity to enjoy a rich education will not be the same as everyone else’s; for many, there may cease to be an opportunity at all.
The authors would like to thank Mia Ives-Rublee, Devon Ombres, Weadé James, and Rachael Eisenberg for their reviews; Chandler Hall for fact-checking; and CAP’s Editorial, Legal, and Art teams for their guidance.