On June 12, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, delivering a landmark victory for disability rights and affirming the power of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This ruling reinforces that discriminatory impact, not just intent, can constitute a violation of federal rights law.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Supreme Court Ruling: Background and Legal Impact
In this case, a student with epilepsy was previously receiving evening instruction to make up for school hours missed due to her medical condition. After relocating to Osseo Area Schools in Minnesota, the district refused to continue the accommodations, calling them too burdensome. As a result, she received roughly two fewer hours of instruction each day than her nondisabled peers. Her family sued under Section 504, which prohibits disability discrimination in federally funded schools. Lower courts sided with the district, requiring plaintiffs to prove intent to discriminate—a standard not applied in most other civil rights cases.
That’s not how most civil rights cases work. If a policy unfairly harms a student because of race, gender, or religion, it’s usually enough to show the effect, not the intent. The lower courts were holding disability cases to a higher standard.
The justices firmly rejected the opinion of the Eighth Circuit. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the Supreme Court had initially taken a similar approach in 1996. However, in 1998, Congress passed a provision prohibiting courts from applying a higher standard to disability discrimination cases.
Bottom line: If a school denies a disabled student equal access, it’s discrimination. Even if Osseo did not intend to discriminate, providing fewer hours of instruction resulted in inequitable outcomes.
Why the A.J.T. Ruling Sets a New Precedent for Disability Discrimination
Imagine a blind student who is denied Braille lessons because the district says it’s too expensive or too hard to find a qualified teacher. It happens all the time. If the Supreme Court had upheld the lower court’s ruling, schools could’ve said, “It wasn’t on purpose,” and refused to make changes. That would have created a huge loophole. Under this new ruling, parents and advocates can point to A.J.T. v. Osseo and say, “that’s not acceptable.”
The Court has made it clear that it’s not about whether a school meant to discriminate. If a blind student is left without access to the same education as their peers, the district must find a way to provide Braille instruction. Saying it’s “too burdensome” is no longer a legal shield.
That same logic applies more broadly. Whether it’s class time, accessible materials, or assistive technology, this ruling affirms that disabled students are entitled to equal outcomes regardless of intent.
Section 504 and Digital Accessibility: What A.J.T. Means for EdTech
Although this case focused on instructional hours, its implications are broader, especially in the digital space. As classrooms increasingly rely on online learning platforms, digital curricula, and educational apps, this ruling could be cited in future cases to argue that inaccessible tools violate federal law.
Digital barriers are real barriers, and A.J.T. affirms that civil rights protections extend into the virtual classroom.
This is more than a court win. It’s a correction to a troubling legal trend of holding disability rights to higher burdens of proof than other civil rights laws. The ruling places disability discrimination back on equal footing with other protected categories like race and gender.
What Educators and Families Should Do After A.J.T. v. Osseo
Schools must reassess policies that may unintentionally harm disabled students. Families now have a more substantial legal precedent to challenge inequitable treatment. Advocates should cite this case when pushing for systemic change.
Share this ruling with your school board, advocacy network, or legal aid office. Awareness is the first step toward implementation.
Final Thoughts: A Win for Equality and Accountability
As the Supreme Court issues its final rulings for the 2024–2025 term, I feel like I can take a deep breath. There are still many battles ahead. But I have always felt most powerless in the face of the courts. I do not expect letters to justices or protests to influence legal decisions. In fact, I would argue that they shouldn't. The courts are not meant to follow public opinion. They are meant to judge cases based on the laws passed by Congress and whether those laws uphold the United States Constitution. These outcomes are not supposed to change based on how we feel about them.
Yes, there are different legal philosophies, as every era of the Supreme Court has shown. Yes, there will be rulings that seem to undermine the laws meant to protect disability rights. That is part of the reality. What we must do is celebrate whenever justice is upheld. And when we see injustice, we must fight to change the laws so that our country lives up to its promise of liberty and justice for all.
Today, I am grateful for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for Section 504, and for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I am grateful that the justices chose to apply the same legal standards to disabled students that apply in all other discrimination cases. And I’m especially grateful that this case will help push back against the quiet erosion of disability rights in schools today.