WASHINGTON — A pivotal case before the U.S. Supreme Court could reshape the legal landscape for students with disabilities — either strengthening their ability to seek justice or making it harder to hold schools accountable for discrimination.
At the center of the dispute are Gina and Aaron Tharpe, parents from Minnesota, who argue that their local school district, Osseo Area Schools, failed to adequately accommodate their daughter Ava’s severe disabilities, in violation of her federal rights. Disability rights advocates are closely watching the outcome, warning that the Court’s decision could have sweeping implications for thousands of families nationwide.
The Tharpes’ legal journey began after they relocated from Tennessee to a suburb of Minneapolis in 2015. Their daughter Ava, who has profound cognitive impairments and a rare form of epilepsy causing frequent morning seizures, had previously been accommodated by a Tennessee school that adjusted her class schedule, allowing her to begin classes in the afternoon and continue with home instruction into the evening.
However, when Ava enrolled in Osseo Area Schools, administrators refused to implement a similar plan. Instead, she was offered only 4.25 hours of instruction per day — substantially less than her non-disabled peers — and as she approached middle school, that instructional time was poised to shrink even further.
An administrative law judge found that the district prioritized employee scheduling over Ava’s educational needs, violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While a federal judge upheld that finding and ordered the school to increase Ava’s instruction hours, the judge ruled the Tharpes could not pursue additional claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, both of which could have enabled them to seek compensatory damages.
The Tharpes argue that courts have unfairly imposed an excessively high bar for students with disabilities seeking justice. Specifically, many courts — including the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — apply the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, derived from a 1982 case, Monahan v. Nebraska. Under this precedent, families must prove not merely negligence but that school officials acted with egregious disregard for a child’s rights — a nearly insurmountable hurdle, according to advocates.
Their lawyers contend that this heightened standard conflicts with the norm applied to disability discrimination cases outside of education settings, where plaintiffs only need to demonstrate “deliberate indifference” to their rights. They are joined by the U.S. Department of Justice, which supports a lower standard for such claims, warning that children subjected to discrimination deserve the same remedies available to adults in employment, housing, and other areas.
Attorneys for the Osseo Area School District argue that relaxing the standard could have devastating consequences for public schools nationwide. They insist that liability should attach only when intentional discrimination can be proven, cautioning that without such a high threshold, schools making good-faith efforts could face “potentially crushing liability” for honest mistakes or resource limitations.
Public schools, they argue, often operate under severe budget constraints and staffing shortages. According to their brief, exposing schools to extensive lawsuits would not only strain resources but also foster an adversarial environment between families and educators, undermining collaborative efforts needed to craft individualized educational plans.
Several educational organizations, including the National Association of School Superintendents, also urged the Court to proceed with caution, emphasizing that litigation could divert funds away from classrooms and into courtrooms.
Advocates argue that existing remedies under IDEA, while important, often fall short. They cite examples such as a deaf student who struggled for years because his school assigned him an aide without knowledge of sign language, severely limiting his future opportunities, and a Michigan boy whose mental health deteriorated after his school failed to accommodate a prolonged illness-related absence.
These families, advocates say, deserve the right to seek damages for educational harm that extends into adulthood, such as diminished career prospects or emotional trauma. Without the ability to sue for such injuries, students with disabilities remain vulnerable to systemic inequities, they argue.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on April 28. The justices’ decision could either reaffirm the strict legal standards currently applied by many lower courts or lower the bar to make it easier for families to sue when their children’s rights are compromised.
A ruling in favor of the Tharpes could dramatically expand protections for students with disabilities, giving them a stronger avenue to hold schools accountable when accommodations fall short. Conversely, siding with the school district could cement a high burden of proof that disability advocates say will continue to disadvantage vulnerable students.
For families like the Tharpes, and for disability rights advocates across the country, the stakes could not be higher.
