Shifting Judicial Standards: Disability Rights and Federal Protections
In 1973, President Nixon passed the Rehabilitation Act, combating discrimination against disabled persons at the federal level, largely focused on the contingency that disabled persons must be protected in order for any institution to receive federal funding. Later, in 1990, President H.W. Bush passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), further setting the landscape for disability law across the United States, in even more sectors, even private industry. Specifically, the ADA set a more rigorous standard for mandatory disability accommodations that every institution or program must uphold, regardless of federal funding status. Now, trends in disability law suggest a shift in judicial approach–largely marked by the unanimous June 2025 Supreme Court decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279. This landmark decision displays that the Court is becoming more lenient on the stipulation that disabled persons must prove that discrimination has occurred by their school for a viable lawsuit. Along with J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, the ongoing Oregon Supreme Court case regarding the extension of ADA protections to mental disabilities, Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington, contests that more mental health professionals should be dispatched rather than armed police in case of mental health crises such as manic episodes or suicidal attempts.
Recent legal developments signal a shift in judicial approach in addressing long-standing systematic failures for disabled individuals within the public sector. In the cases of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 and Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, the courts are interpreting the limits of legal protections for disabled persons and the precedent’s ability to limit or reform systematic neglect in a state. Within the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Article II of the ADA are key provisions, showing the trend of greater leniency for disabled plaintiffs in federal suits.
In the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, the topic of educational discrimination (against disabled persons), specifically, was brought into question. Plaintiff A.J.T. suffered from severe epilepsy. The student’s epilepsy was so severe that they could not attend school until the afternoon hours. This caused the student to only receive four and a quarter hours of public educational instruction, compared to the six and a half hours a traditional student receives daily. When Independent School District No. 279 of Minnesota refused to accommodate this student to make up for the instructional time missed, due to severe disability, the plaintiff, A.J.T., brought this case to court, ultimately arriving in the Supreme Court.
Prior to this case, there was no comprehensive precedent regarding the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for students with disabilities. Thus, there was no explicit standard for how the text ought to be applied to school children. However, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states that there need not be a “bad faith or gross misjudgement” in order to have grounds for a valid disability-discrimination lawsuit. So, this case questioned whether school children should be extended this same standard, or whether a heightened standard should be applied in the school setting.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of A.J.T., deciding that the disabled school children had valid claims for discrimination under the standard of deliberate indifference, and were not under a heightened standard of “bad faith or gross misjudgement.” This is a landmark decision that has set the framework for many future discrimination cases in the near future.
Despite the unanimous decision, Supreme Court Justices held concurring opinions, which largely contested the future of how this precedent will be applied in later cases. Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh raised concerns for the textual content of the decision as it pertains to constitutionality, suggesting that the imposition of liability on institutions, without explicitly defining the terms of “indifference” in discrimination, has the potential to be problematic. Likely coming from a textualist approach, that is strictly interpreting the Constitution for its explicit text, Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh are more focused on the plain text of the legislation rather than the implicit implications of the law. Even further, Justice Thomas is a notorious champion of originalism. Originalism is an approach not only concerned with the explicit meaning of plain text; it is one centered around what the Constitution's original intent was at the time of its original ratification in the 18th century.
Originalism can be problematic when it comes to disability law, as today’s widely recognized disabilities, mental and physical, were likely dismissed at the time of the writing of the Constitution. An originalist approach from judges can potentially negatively affect those with disabilities, as the original Constitution did not take into account the need for accommodation in a modern setting.
On the other hand, Justice Sotomayor emphasized the need for an intent-neutral standard in order to even further protect students with disabilities. Intent-neutral standard means the effect of the discrimination will be judged, regardless of the defendant’s intent in doing so. In the case of disabled students, an intent-neutral standard would immensely protect them, as an inadvertent lack of accommodation would be judged the same as with malicious intent. Rather than hone in on textualism, Justice Sotomayor focused on judicial activism. An activist approach to interpreting the Constitution guided Justice Sotomayor to air on the side of leniency for disabled students.
In the ongoing case of Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, mental disability is the primary focus. The U.S. District Court in Oregon is currently parsing through a case surrounding law enforcement being dispatched to handle 911 emergencies for mental disabilities rather than mental health professionals. Disability Rights of Oregon (a nonprofit disability protection agency), along with the ACLU and ACLU of Oregon, filed a federal lawsuit against Washington County, Oregon. The lawsuit claimed that not accommodating the mentally disabled by providing mental health professionals for 911 calls directly violates Article II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The very filing of this lawsuit signals a shift towards enforcing the ADA and Rehabilitation Act proactively, rather than coming to the point of legal dispute. Also, if successful, Disability Rights of Oregon will likely influence the allocation of funding for law enforcement and increase local funding for adequate mental health professionals.
While this is an ongoing case, current trends in federal courts would suggest that the courts may side with Disability Rights of Oregon, in an effort to extend better accommodation to mentally disabled persons, under the same intent-neutral standard for discrimination as other disabilities under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The outcome of this decision has the possibility of becoming a dispute over federal funding for law enforcement and conversation surrounding the possible re-allocation of federal funding to increase mental health professionals. If this shift in judicial approach continues to favor mental and physical disability rights, public and private sectors will likely need to re-evaluate accessibility and accommodation policies.
For decades, federal legislation has failed to adequately address the nuances of disability law, passively addressing discrimination that arises as a result of these faults–both intentional and inadvertent. Now marks a period of legal systems across the country testing the limitations of the Constitution. In an effort to further protect vulnerable groups, judges are now, in many instances of disability law, taking the “living Constitution” approach. Meaning, judges are no longer neglecting to shape disability policy because of its’ lack of mention in the Constitution- they are extending the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to include an updated scope of people.
Notably, Justice Thomas, a notorious originalist, taking a proactive and counter-originalist stance in siding with disabled students in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, is a staunch mark in the changing tides of legal trends from judges of all perspectives across the country. While disabilities, both mental and physical, are by no means a new development, country-wide legislation and policies are slow to align with the growing recognition of disability rights and push for social inclusion.
Federal Courts are testing the limits of the extent to which America’s legal systems can limit and/or extend systematic discrimination against disabled persons. The future of disability seems to be bright. With historically originalist judges airing on the side of inclusivity, and landmark developments to legislation that has been largely untouched for decades,disabled persons in all settings are beginning to see not only accommodations, but protections.
Edited by Jane Bryant and Lukas Roybal