WASHINGTON - In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a legal standard that required students with disabilities to meet a higher burden of proof when challenging schools for discrimination [1] Supreme Court Decision Lets Students Sue Schools More Easily for Disability Bias Education Week (2025) . The ruling in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools eliminates what disability advocates had criticized as a double standard that required students to prove "bad faith or gross misjudgment" rather than the "deliberate indifference" standard used in other disability discrimination contexts.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that "ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," rejecting the notion that schools deserve a "distinct, more demanding" test [1] Supreme Court Decision Lets Students Sue Schools More Easily for Disability Bias Education Week (2025) .
The Case: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
The dispute began with a Minnesota student, Ava Tharpe, who has a rare form of epilepsy that makes it unsafe for her to attend school in the early mornings.
Ava's family sued the district under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, seeking a full school day and compensation for the years of lost instruction and out-of-pocket costs incurred for private support. Lower courts, however, ruled against the family, citing an old 8th Circuit precedent (Monahan v. Nebraska, 1982) that required students to prove the school acted with "bad faith or gross misjudgment." Under that standard – unique to a handful of circuits in school cases – the Tharpes' claims were denied, even though the court found the district had failed to provide an "appropriate" education. In contrast, most other courts around the country allow disability plaintiffs to prevail by showing officials were deliberately indifferent to their needs, a considerably lower bar.
The Supreme Court took up Ava's case to resolve this conflict. During oral arguments in April, the justices appeared skeptical of why students alone should have a harder time proving discrimination [3] Justices Seem Puzzled by District Argument Yahoo Finance (2025) . Disability rights advocates warned that if the higher standard remained – or worse, if it was extended nationwide – students and others with disabilities would face undue burdens in enforcing their civil rights. This week's decision allayed those fears, ensuring that students aren't stuck with a uniquely onerous standard to vindicate their rights.
The Unanimous Ruling
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, swept away the extra hurdle that had been imposed on students. "ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," Roberts wrote, not a "distinct, more demanding" test for schools. In practical terms, the Court said a student does not have to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to prove discrimination under these laws. This means schools can be held liable if they are merely deliberately indifferent to a child's needs, without the family having to show officials acted with improper motive or extreme neglect.
All nine justices agreed on the outcome, but two concurring opinions offered a glimpse of debate. Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) wrote separately to underscore that the text and history of the ADA and Section 504 leave no room for a special "improper purpose" requirement in schools. Imposing such a high bar, she warned, would "eviscerate the core" of these disability rights laws, leaving millions without the protections Congress intended [2] Disability Discrimination: Supreme Court A.J.T. v. Osseo Prism Reports (2025) . On the other hand, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh) noted that while the school district's late-breaking argument for a tougher standard across the board wasn't properly before the Court in this case, he would be open to considering that issue in a future case. For now, however, the Court unanimously declined to adopt a stricter rule, firmly bringing school liability standards in line with those in workplaces, public services, and other settings.
'Bad Faith' vs. 'Deliberate Indifference'
This decision highlights a crucial difference in legal standards. Under the overturned "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard, a plaintiff had to prove that school officials acted with an almost malicious intent or extreme departure from accepted practice. By contrast, "deliberate indifference" means an institution knew about a person's disability-related need and consciously failed to act, showing a reckless disregard for the person's rights. It does not require proving that officials wanted to harm the student – only that they knew of an obligation or risk and chose to do nothing or not enough.
To make this concrete, consider how the two standards might play out in a college setting under Title II or Section 504:
Uncaptioned lectures: A deaf student at a public university repeatedly requests captions for recorded lectures, but the school never provides them. Under a deliberate indifference standard, the student could prevail by showing the university was aware of the need but ignored it – essentially, that it failed to take reasonable action despite knowing the barrier. Under a bad faith standard, the student would have to prove the university intentionally refused accommodation out of animosity or an outrageous lapse in judgment, a far tougher showing that would likely let the school off the hook if it simply neglected the requests (even if the outcome was the same for the student).
Delays in accommodations: Imagine a student with a learning disability is approved for extra time on exams or an e-text version of a textbook, but administrative delays mean the accommodation arrives weeks late or not at all. Under deliberate indifference, such a delay can amount to a violation if the college knew the student's success depended on timely support and effectively shrugged it off. Under a bad faith or gross misjudgment test, unless officials' delay was so egregious that it implies a willful disregard for the student's rights, the college might evade liability – even though the student was academically harmed in the meantime.
Inaccessible courseware: A university adopts a new learning platform or software that is not accessible to blind students, and administrators receive repeated complaints and accessibility reports but take no meaningful action. Under deliberate indifference, the lack of action despite knowing the accessibility problems could be enough to prove discrimination – the school knew about the barrier and did nothing adequate to fix it. Under a bad-faith rule, the burden would be on students to show the university's leadership consciously intended to exclude or didn't care at all – a threshold so high that even clear inaction might not qualify as "intentional" discrimination in court.
Each of these scenarios illustrates the now-rejected gap in accountability. The deliberate indifference standard focuses on the school's failure to fulfill its duty once aware of a need, whereas bad faith or gross misjudgment suggested a need to prove an improper purpose or extraordinary neglect. The Supreme Court's ruling confirms that disabled students don't need to prove an ulterior motive from schools – just that the school knew of a serious need and failed to meet it.
The Seismic Shift: What This Means for Higher Education
While Thursday's Supreme Court decision emerged from a K-12 context, its reverberations will be felt across every campus in America. Public institutions (covered by Title II of the ADA) and any school receiving federal funds (covered by Section 504) are all bound by these discrimination laws (e.g. higher education has already been operating under the deliberate indifference standard). The Court's unanimous rejection of the heightened "bad faith" standard for K-12 schools sets a universal standard and brings renewed attention to the deliberate indifference standard that has governed higher education.
The New Legal Landscape
The practical implications remain stark. If a college knows a student requires an accommodation or faces an accessibility barrier and fails to adequately address it, the school could be found in violation under the deliberate indifference standard. Critically, what may have seemed like an adequate response in practice may actually constitute deliberate indifference under the law. Consider the routine delays that plague many disability services offices: a backlog in captioning requests, a slow response to accessible textbook needs, or administrative inertia in addressing inaccessible learning platforms. While these lapses have historically faced enforcement challenges, the heightened attention to deliberate indifference may change that dynamic.
The Financial Stakes Have Never Been Higher
"It could create an atmosphere where there will probably be more litigation, because there will be an easier standard to meet", warned education law experts during the case [4] Supreme Court Decision Lets Students Sue Schools More Easily for Disability Bias Education Week (2025) . For institutions already grappling with budget constraints, the financial exposure is sobering.
The damages landscape offers a preview of potential costs. Compensatory damages in ADA cases cover "out-of-pocket expenses caused by the discrimination (such as costs associated with a job search or medical expenses)" and "any emotional harm suffered (such as mental anguish, inconvenience, or loss of enjoyment of life)" [5] Remedies for Employment Discrimination EEOC .
In higher education contexts, this could encompass everything from a student's costs for private tutoring when accessible materials weren't provided, to damages for the career opportunities lost when inaccessible coursework forced them to change majors.
While damage caps exist based on institutional size—ranging from $50,000 for smaller organizations to $300,000 for companies with over 500 employees [6] Unlawful Discrimination and Penalties for Prohibited Practices USCIS —these limits don't include attorney fees or the costs of systemic remediation. Moreover, patterns of violations could trigger Department of Justice involvement, with civil penalties of up to $75,000 for the first violation and $150,000 for any subsequent violation.
The Insurance Implications
Perhaps more concerning for risk managers is the murky territory of insurance coverage. Common Business Owner's policies exclude coverage for both of these claims scenarios. However, an Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy may respond, defend and indemnify these type of claim. Yet even EPLI policies have limitations—most policies explicitly exclude injunctive relief from the definition of "loss". So any costs related to implementing those remedial fixes, such as hiring a web designer or software developer to implement those required compliance changes, will almost always need to come from institutional funds.
Industry observers anticipate insurance carriers will respond to this renewed focus with premium increases, particularly in jurisdictions previously operating under the more protective standard. Institutions may find themselves navigating not just higher premiums but also more restrictive policy terms and higher deductibles.
The End of 'Good Enough' Accessibility
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo represents more than a technical adjustment to legal standards—it signals a fundamental shift in how educational institutions must approach disability services. For educational leaders, the message is clear: reactive compliance has ended. Institutions have to proactively identify and eliminate accessibility barriers before they become litigation flashpoints. While the financial and operational challenges are significant, the path forward offers an opportunity to reimagine accessibility not as a compliance burden but as a core institutional value. In this new landscape, the institutions that thrive will be those that move beyond asking "what's the minimum we must do?" to embracing "how can we ensure every student has full access to the educational experience they deserve?"
Ready to ensure your institution meets the new legal standards for accessibility? Contact Echo Labs to learn how AI-powered solutions can help you proactively address accessibility barriers and avoid litigation risks.