Supreme Court Issues Decision in Special Education Case

Posted on June 19, 2025

Important Takeaways: The Supreme Court of the United States recently lowered the standard required to violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Parents are no longer required to show intentional discrimination to receive court-ordered compensatory education, which significantly lowers their burden of proof.

Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that parents still have to show intentional discrimination to be eligible for compensatory damages (money). However, the Court noted that intentional discrimination can be established by deliberate indifference on the part of the school district. Further, deliberate indifference is established by disregarding a strong likelihood that the challenged action—or inaction—would result in a violation of federally protected rights.

Facts: A.J.T., a young Minnesota student with severe epilepsy, had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that included at-home instruction during the evening. A.J.T.’s epilepsy was less severe in the afternoons, which allowed her to participate in a learning environment after 12:00.

At the age of ten, A.J.T. enrolled in Osseo Area Public Schools. However, her IEP’s evening instruction provision was rejected by the school district. Without additional evening hours of instruction, A.J.T. received only 4.25 hours of instruction per day, which was over two hours less than the other students in the school district. After three years and numerous failed attempts to have evening instruction included in A.J.T.’s IEP, the parents filed an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) complaint alleging that refusal of evening instruction, and the resulting loss in hours of instruction, was a denial of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). For more detailed information on the facts of this case, please visit our blog dated January 22, 2025.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the school had violated the IDEA by not providing A.J.T. a FAPE. The ALJ ordered hundreds of hours of compensatory education and to provide A.J.T. with at-home evening instruction.

A.J.T. sued for a violation of IDEA because the remedies are limited to court orders and do not include money damages. The reason for not including money damages as an IDEA remedy is the lower standard of proof required for a violation. IDEA violations do not require discriminatory intent. In other words, school districts can violate the IDEA without the purpose of doing so.

On the other hand, lawsuits claiming violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require “intentional discrimination.” Or at least they used to.

The district and appellate courts applied the heightened Monahan standard to the case at hand and found that the school district had not acted in bad faith or with gross misconduct. However, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Monahan decision. The Supreme Court’s decision is supported by the absence of statutory text in both Section 504 and the ADA that establishes a heightened standard unique to educational settings.

Currently, ADA and Section 504 claims will be successful without a showing of discriminatory intent. School districts can no longer escape compensatory education orders by claiming they did not intend to violate the ADA and Section 504.

What this means: For decades, courts have applied the Monahan standard to ADA and Section 504 claims in educational settings. The heightened standard required bad faith or gross misconduct on the part of the school district. Notably, the heightened standard requires “something more” than non-compliance with the ADA or Section 504. However, ADA and Section 504 claims arising outside of an educational setting did not adopt the heightened standard when Monahan was decided in 1982. The standard applied to non-educational ADA or Section 504 claims merely requires a showing that an organization disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.

Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Monahan standard no longer applies to ADA or Section 504 claims in educational settings. Instead, parents can obtain permanent injunctions requiring certain IEP provisions to be in place for students if they can demonstrate that the school district disregarded a strong likelihood that their action—or inaction—violated the ADA or Rehabilitation Act as it pertains to that student’s FAPE.

A.J.T. v. Ossseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279, Supreme Court of the United States, June 12, 2025.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.