In a decision as groundbreaking as it was unanimous, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Ava Tharpe, a student with disabilities, in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court to determine the appropriate standard for proving disability discrimination in educational settings. The verdict? Students suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act no longer need to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” by school officials, a standard previously applied in the Eighth Circuit.
This decision carries the long-awaited news that students with disabilities suing under these acts for educational discrimination should be held to the same standard as other individuals alleging disability discrimination, holding widespread implications in ensuring that such students have the same access to education as their peers, and that schools are held to the same standard.
The Unique Situation of Ava Tharpe
Ava Tharpe’s rare medical condition comes with a caveat: she can’t go to school in the morning. The Minnesota teenager, who suffers from a form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, experiences regular seizures that often worsen in the mornings, preventing her from safely attending school before noon. Consequently, Ava’s family requested accommodations for her illness from the Osseo Area school district in the form of a 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM school day. The school district denied the request.
What’s the IDEA, Osseo?
The family was shocked at the school district’s refusal. At their previous school in Kentucky, Ava had been given the accommodations, supplementing her education with at-home instruction when needed. However, the Osseo Area school district told the Tharpes that not only did state law not require them to modify Ava’s schedule, but their providing one student with accommodations would saddle teachers and school officials with a disproportionate “administrative burden.”
Ava’s family refused to give up their fight. The Tharpes first filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law that entitles disabled students to education plans that suit their individual needs. Through IDEA, the Tharpes managed to increase Ava’s daily amount of schooling from 4.25 hours to 5.75 hours— a marked improvement, but still below the daily amount of schooling for non-disabled Osseo Area students, which is about 6.5 hours.
The Tharpes subsequently utilized the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), both of which prohibit discrimination based on ability, to sue the school district for alleged discrimination against Ava. However, the Tharpes lost the suit when a trial court and, later, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis held that Ava’s school officials did not act in “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a previously established standard for school-related disability discrimination cases.
What Exactly Is the “Bad Faith or Gross Misjudgment” Standard?
At the heart of A.J.T. v. Osseo is a legal hurdle that traces back over four decades. In the 1982 case Monahan v. Nebraska, the Eighth Circuit Court established that, to prove discrimination in educational contexts under the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs had to demonstrate that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” That meant it wasn’t enough to demonstrate that a school failed to meet a student’s needs—families had to prove intent, or near-malicious neglect.
This standard stood in immense contrast to what courts generally require in other disability discrimination contexts, where a showing of “deliberate indifference” often suffices. Put into practice, Monahan made it exceptionally difficult for students like Ava Tharpe to succeed in court. School districts could evade any sort of accountability as long as they appeared to act in good faith, even if their decisions denied students with disabilities meaningful access to education. It was this crooked legal framework that the Tharpe family—and eventually the Supreme Court—would come to challenge.
From St. Louis to SCOTUS
While lower courts ruled against the Tharpes, the question arose, “Why is the burden of proof in cases like Ava’s so much higher than it is for other disability discrimination suits?” The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, allowing the 9 justices to review the lower courts’ decision. The Tharpes’ legal representation argued in front of SCOTUS that an “atextual rule” with no sound legal basis should not prevent students from receiving Rehabilitation Act or ADA benefits. Meanwhile, lawyers for the school district claimed that holding Ava’s school liable for discrimination would set a precedent that could upend “countless good-faith decisions by every public school in America.”
Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of the Tharpes. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, holding that “ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” Intentional discrimination, he wrote, “is satisfied by proof that the defendant acted with 'deliberate indifference’ rather than bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The higher burden of proof, which had imposed an unnecessary barrier upon students with disabilities and their families, became, through the SCOTUS ruling, a more equitable standard affirming the rights of disabled people in the US.
Unanimous, But Not United
Though the ruling in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools was indeed unanimous, not all justices arrived at the same legal reasoning or agreed on what comes next.
On the right, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, filed a concurrence that demonstrated some reservations. While they did agree that the school district’s arguments were procedurally flawed in this case, they left the door open to revisiting how disability laws apply to schools in future litigation. Their message was as such: just because a school denies an accommodation doesn’t necessarily mean it has discriminated. That question, they suggested, is far from settled.
On the left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, alongside Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pushed for a richer reading of disability law. They argued that requiring plaintiffs to prove “bad faith” would gut the very protections Congress intended. A failure to accommodate, they found, is discrimination—even without malice—and the law must reflect that reality.
A Win for Families & a Warning from Schools
Aaron Tharpe, Ava’s father, stated that the outcome of the case is “bigger than [his] family” and equipped other families with “another tool that they can use to…fight for the right to access.” Disability rights advocates were also quick to celebrate the ruling: Shira Wakschlag, a representative from the disability advocacy group The Arc of the United States, asserted that “the very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.”
The ruling, however, does leave school districts uncertain about next steps. This decision will likely result in a wave of disability rights lawsuits for schools across the country, which officials worry will strain school resources and prevent students from receiving the quality instruction they deserve.
As the aftermath of the A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools decision unfolds, school districts will doubtless have to perform a delicate dance between protecting disabled students’ place in the classroom and ensuring that their standard of education remains the best it can be.
Lowering Barriers and Raising Accountability
But the impact of A.J.T. v. Osseo extends far beyond a singular Minnesota school district. By pulling down the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, the Supreme Court evened the legal playing field for students with disabilities nationwide. Now, school districts can be held accountable under the same standard used in workplaces, public spaces, and other arenas of public life.
This decision isn’t to be taken lightly. It could open the door to a wave of new litigation, but advocates say that’s not a sign of excess—rather, it’s evidence that families now have access to justice they were once denied. More importantly, it shifts expectations: schools must now proactively ensure access, not just avoid harm.
For families? The ruling is a roadmap and long-awaited validation. For schools? It’s a wake-up call. The legal standard has changed—and so must the systems that serve millions of children who can’t afford to be treated as exceptions to the law.