Supreme Court Cases That Could Up-End Schools by Summer
While the executive branch is getting its fair share of news these days, there are two cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court this spring that could have massive consequences on K-12 public schools.
Our educational civil rights experts are watching these cases closely for our school clients:
Is a surge in disability discrimination lawsuits coming against K-12 schools?: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
In the last decade, two landmark cases shook the landscape of students with disabilities in K-12 schools (Fry v. Napoleon Schools in 2017 and Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools in 2023). Since these decisions, there has been a palpable rise in plaintiffs bringing Section 504 or ADA claims alleging disability discrimination and seeking monetary relief.
Disability discrimination includes exclusion, inferior treatment, or certain differential treatment for students with disabilities. This could include school administrators not responding to an autistic student being bullied, or leaving a student with emotional disabilities out of a field trip.
To succeed in a lawsuit against a K-12 school and prove disability discrimination, a child’s family has to meet a different legal standard depending on where they live in the country.
In a case out of Minnesota, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, the plaintiff is asking SCOTUS to weigh in on these different standards.
In five federal court circuits, including the 8th Circuit in which Minnesota sits, the child’s family must show school officials acted “in bad faith” or “with gross misjudgment” to obtain compensatory relief like medical expenses. Other circuits have an easier legal standard to meet: the child’s family must show the school officials acted “with deliberate indifference.”
Should the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” or “deliberate indifference” standard apply throughout the land?
If SCOTUS agrees with the Minnesotan plaintiff and rules that the lower “deliberate indifference” standard should apply, K-12 schools will likely see an increase in disability discrimination lawsuits.
This increase will only be exacerbated by the gutting of the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), as families of children with disabilities can no longer rely upon the OCR complaint process to enforce Section 504 administratively in schools and will be forced to turn to private litigation.
SCOTUS will hear oral argument on April 28, 2025 and issue an order by summer.
Do parents have a constitutional right to opt out of any curriculum that does not align with their values?: Mahmoud v. Taylor
SCOTUS is hopping right into the culture wars in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Imprint Legal Group previously wrote about this case out of Maryland:
A Maryland school district added 22+ books with LGBTQIA+ themes to its language arts curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom if they so choose (one of which was Pride Puppy, above, the story of a puppy that gets lost during an LGBTQIA+ Pride parade).
Some Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic parents sued the school district when the district did not allow them to opt-out their children of the lessons. The parents argued that the mandatory attendance policy violated their rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing, free speech, and due process rights.
The 4th Circuit ruled the parents did not have the right to “notice and opt out” of the LGBTQIA-themed books. The court wrote: “Mere exposure to views contrary to one's own religious beliefs [does not] necessarily constitute a cognizable burden" on the free exercise of religion.
The Maryland parents are now asking SCOTUS to reverse this holding and allow parents to opt out of any part of curriculum that is against their child’s religious upbringing.
While most states have “notice and opt out” allowing parents to opt their children out of sex ed, the right to opt out of How to Kill a Mockingbird during English class is not a recognized constitutional right.
If SCOTUS agrees with the Maryland parents, the Court could recognize a constitutionally-mandated notice and opt-out requirement to all aspects of a school’s curriculum. The parents argue that schools could simply excuse students during that part of the curriculum. The schools argue that this would be a dramatic administrative burden, with teachers potentially having to prepare alternative materials to all subjects that might offend a parent: books with dragons or witches, lessons on evolution, The Diary of Anne Frank, stories with divorced parents… the list is endless.
SCOTUS will hear oral argument on April 22, 2025 and issue an order by summer.
Imprint Legal Group advises schools and businesses on legal compliance and inclusive cultures. To discuss any questions about your particular situation or training opportunities, contact: hello@imprintlegalgroup.com.
All posts of Imprint Legal Group and its authors are intended as information, not legal advice. This information is valid as of April 5, 2025.
