Supreme Court Update: Special Education Cases on the Horizon

As the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term on October 7, two significant special education cases may come under review, potentially shaping the future of disability rights in public schools. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools and Luo v. Owen J. Roberts School District both raise critical questions about the scope of schools’ obligations to accommodate students with disabilities under federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Though the Court has not yet decided whether to hear these cases, their outcomes could provide important legal clarity on the rights of students with disabilities, particularly in the context of medical conditions and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279
   This case revolves around the district’s obligation to accommodate a student with a significant medical condition, a seizure disorder, that limited her ability to attend school before noon. The parents argued the district’s refusal to provide afternoon instruction violated the student’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. These laws prohibit public schools from discriminating against students with disabilities and require reasonable accommodations to ensure they have equal access to educational opportunities.

The parents asserted the school district’s refusal to modify the student’s school hours to accommodate her medical needs was discriminatory, effectively denying her access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). However, both the District Court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the family, concluding the district had not acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment—standards that must be met to prove discrimination under Section 504 and the ADA. The courts reasoned that the district provided accommodations but was not required to alter its entire schedule for one student.

On September 3, 2024, the family petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the district’s refusal to provide afternoon instruction violated the student’s rights. The key question the Court could address is whether a school’s refusal to modify school hours for a medical condition constitutes discrimination under Section 504 and the ADA. The outcome could establish new standards for how schools accommodate students with chronic medical conditions that impact their attendance and learning.

2. Luo v. Owen J. Roberts School District
   This case deals with the provision of special education services to an adult student with autism who suffered significant learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. The district allowed the student to repeat a grade during the 2021-2022 school year to compensate for the disruptions, but after that year, the district discontinued the student’s IDEA services, claiming they had met their legal obligations.

The student’s parent contended the district should have continued providing special education services into the 2022-23 school year because the student had not fully recovered from the learning loss and still required additional services to receive a FAPE, as required by IDEA. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, however, sided with the school district, ruling the district had complied with state law and was not obligated to extend IDEA services indefinitely.

The parent filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on August 16, 2024, asking the Court to clarify whether school districts are required to provide extended services to address pandemic-related learning loss under IDEA. This case has the potential to shape how school districts across the country handle the lingering effects of the pandemic on students with disabilities, particularly adult students, and could redefine how long districts are required to offer special education services for recovery.

Potential Impacts of These Cases
Both A.J.T. v. Osseo and Luo v. Owen J. Roberts address critical issues in the interpretation of federal laws relating to students with disabilities. If the Supreme Court decides to hear these cases, the resulting decisions could have far-reaching effects on:
• School accommodations for medical conditions: A.J.T. could redefine what is considered reasonable accommodation under Section 504 and the ADA, particularly concerning modifications to school schedules or instructional formats for students with health-related attendance issues.
• Provision of IDEA services post-pandemic: Luo could set new standards for how long schools are required to provide special education services in response to disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent to which schools must continue services to remedy learning loss.

Stay tuned to see if the Court decides to hear these cases.