At the SpedLawBlog North compound, we’re feeling generous and are sharing materials for those who teach special education law. For everyone else, the video listed as #5 below is well worth your time—at a minimum, watch that.

In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. We have covered the case extensively on SpedLawBlog.

For use in special education law courses, here are curated materials:

1. Overview of the case prior to Supreme Court review
   https://spedlawblog.com/2025/01/28/new-supreme-court-case-2/
2. Case summary immediately prior to oral argument
   https://spedlawblog.com/2025/04/21/supreme-court-case-april-28-2025/
3. Decision announcement and initial analysis
   https://spedlawblog.com/2025/06/12/unanimous-decision-by-the-u-s-supreme-court-in-ajt-v-osseo-area-schools/
4. Implications of the decision for school administrators
   https://spedlawblog.com/2025/07/05/top-ten-things-administrators-must-know-do-post-a-j-t-decision/
5. Bloomberg Law video (≈40 minutes)
   An excellent profile of the parents’ attorney and his preparation for the case
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsOiVmjv-5k&t=2s
6. Discussion Questions

a. What practical protection did the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard give districts, and what specific behaviors does its elimination now expose to liability?

b. After A.J.T., how should administrators distinguish between a simple implementation error and a legally actionable denial of reasonable accommodations?

c. Can “professional judgment” still function as a defense under Section 504 and the ADA, or does it now require a higher level of documentation and justification?

d. Under the Court’s reasoning, when does failure to implement a 504 accommodation become discrimination—even absent intent?

e. Is “administrative convenience” ever a defensible rationale for limiting or denying an accommodation post-A.J.T.? Why or why not?

f. What does a legally defensible denial of a requested accommodation look like now, and what specific evidence must be documented?

g. Why does vague or generic documentation (e.g., “not appropriate,” “not necessary,” “team decision”) create greater legal risk after this decision?

h. Should districts now monitor 504 plan implementation with the same rigor as IEP implementation? What are the legal and operational consequences of doing so—or failing to do so?

i. Which staff roles pose the greatest compliance risk under the new standard if they are not properly trained, and why?

j. How does the distinction between injunctive relief and monetary damages matter strategically for both districts and plaintiffs after A.J.T.?

k. What types of Section 504 cases are most likely to increase as courts begin applying this decision?

l. Does A.J.T. ultimately push districts toward better access and inclusion, or toward defensive, risk-averse compliance—and what leadership decisions influence that outcome?

Postscript

With the significant reduction in special education enforcement capacity at the Office for Civil Rights, and a growing recognition that parents have limited non-litigation avenues for relief, attorneys representing families are increasingly citing A.J.T. as justification for filing suit—particularly as a pathway to monetary damages.