By Rachel Bechtel and Jamie Strawbridge

The disability rights community breathed a sigh of relief this June when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. In this case, the Court addressed Eighth Circuit precedent that applied a higher intent standard to claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the educational context compared to other settings. While the majority’s decision is a victory for disability rights, Justice Thomas and Kavanaugh’s concurrence indicates that some justices are open to revisiting the intent standard in disability rights cases.

Background: Rights and Standards

Students with disabilities in primary and secondary education can bring claims under three main federal laws: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. When plaintiffs seek monetary damages, most courts have not required plaintiffs to show intentional discrimination—recognizing that much disability-based discrimination reflects not malice but “benign neglect.” Rather, these courts have required plaintiffs to show “deliberate indifference,” meaning the defendant disregarded a known and substantial risk of violating the plaintiff’s rights. This is a lesser standard than proving intentional discrimination.

However, the Eighth Circuit has long deviated from this norm. In its 1982 decision Monahan v. Nebraska, the court held that in the educational context, plaintiffs must show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to prevail under the ADA or Section 504—a significantly higher burden than in any other setting. The court reasoned this standard was needed to “harmonize” ADA and Section 504 claims with the IDEA’s specific procedural framework. Yet, as the Supreme Court recently explained in A.J.T., this heightened standard appears nowhere in the text of either the ADA or Section 504.

Just two years after Monahan, the Supreme Court attempted to narrow available remedies in Smith v. Robinson, holding that students could only bring claims about the adequacy of their education under the IDEA—not under the ADA or Section 504. In response, Congress swiftly amended the IDEA to clarify that nothing in the statute should be interpreted to limit rights under the ADA, Section 504, or other federal laws. Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit continued to apply the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard.

The Case of A.J.T.

A.J.T. is a teenager with epilepsy that prevents her from attending school in the mornings due to more frequent seizure activity. Previously, A.J.T.’s schools accommodated her by providing evening instruction to ensure that the length of her school day was comparable to that of her peers. However, when she moved to a new school district, administrators refused to include evening instruction in her Individualized Education Plan and further shortened her school day. Her family sued under the ADA and Section 504, alleging disability discrimination.

The Eighth Circuit acknowledged that A.J.T. had likely demonstrated that the school district acted with “deliberate indifference”—a standard that would suffice in most circuits to establish liability and entitlement to damages. But under Monahan, this still wasn’t enough. The court openly criticized Monahan and the Eighth Circuit’s own heightened standard in a footnote, admitting it had “no anchor in statutory text” and was mere “judicial gloss.” Despite this criticism, the court felt bound by precedent and denied relief.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that nothing in the ADA or Section 504 supports applying a more stringent standard in education cases than in other settings. This was a win for A.J.T. and a reaffirmation of disability rights law as it stands.

A Troubling Concurrence

While the majority opinion reaffirmed existing protections, a concurrence by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh raised red flags. In a late-stage argument, the school district shifted its position, asserting that the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard should apply not just in education but across all ADA and Section 504 claims. The majority dismissed the argument as not properly raised.

Nevertheless, in their concurrence, Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh suggested that they might support such a higher intent standard if the issue were fully briefed in a future case. If adopted, such a shift would jeopardize core civil rights protections by requiring disabled plaintiffs to prove an incredibly (often impossibly) high intent standard—potentially rendering the statutes toothless in many cases.

Why Intent Does Not Belong

One of the central aims of civil rights laws like the ADA and Section 504 is to address the impact of discrimination—regardless of whether it was intentional. Much discrimination against disabled individuals is subtle or systemic, not the result of overt hostility. Requiring proof of intent would gut the very protections these laws are meant to ensure, especially for individuals with disabilities who often face barriers built into policies or practices, rather than discrimination driven by malice.

Thankfully, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson pushed back forcefully. In their concurrence, the Justices explained that the plain text of both statutes requires only a causal link between one’s disability and the discrimination they experienced—not proof of intent. They cited numerous cases in which discrimination occurred absent “ill will or animus.”

One example is National Federation of the Blind v. Lamone, successfully litigated by BGL and argued in the Fourth Circuit by BGL’s Managing Partner, Jessie Weber. In that case, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision ordering Maryland to make its online ballot-marking tool available to voters with print disabilities—ensuring equitable absentee voting access without needing to prove intentional discrimination.

Looking Ahead

Civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities should never hinge on whether someone meant to discriminate. The focus must remain on whether people were discriminated against—and what can be done to remedy that harm. For now, the crisis is averted. However, the fight to protect the foundation of disability rights continues, with BGL on the front lines, advocating tirelessly for the rights of individuals with disabilities.

Brown, Goldstein & Levy is a nationally recognized leader when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. If you or a loved one have a disability and encounter discrimination, consider contacting ustoday to discuss your situation.

This blog was primarily authored by BGL summer associate Rachel Bechtel. At the time of publication, Rachel is a rising 3L at American University Washington College of Law. There, she is a student attorney in the Disability Rights Clinic, Accessibility Director of the Student Bar Association, and President of the Disability Law Society. Rachel received her master’s by research degree in intellectual and developmental disabilities as a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Kent, where she researched the effects of deinstitutionalization. Prior to this, Rachel worked within the Protection and Advocacy Network and as a live-in direct support professional for adults with intellectual and physical disabilities.