05/09/2025
Last week, I tuned in to the Supreme Court’s live feed to hear a few minutes of oral argument in the Section 504/ADA related case, AJT vs. Osseo Area Schools. The exchange I heard had my mind whirling the rest of the day.
The central question before the Court: If a student sues a school district for discrimination under Section 504 or the ADA, is it enough to show the district acted with “deliberate indifference”, or must the student meet the more demanding “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard?
In initial briefings, AJT argued the lower standard of “deliberate indifference” that courts unanimously apply in non-school settings should apply to school settings as well. Osseo argued the higher “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard should apply in school cases.
In a later briefing, Osseo began to argue that the heightened “bad faith” standard should apply to all ADA and Section 504 discrimination cases. This was a huge pivot that amplified the potential reach of the AJT decision from a narrow subset of ADA/Section 504 case (i.e. schools) to every future case filed under the ADA/Section 504.
Understandably, AJT’s lawyers highlighted Osseo’s major position shift to the Court. I tuned in as Osseo’s lawyer, an excellent and experienced Supreme Court litigator, responded:
MS. BLATT: What is a lie and inaccurate is that we ever said in any context that this Court should take the same language and define it differently depending on context. That is not true. There is no statement. They adding words to our mouth. We never said you should have a double regime.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: You -- you believe that Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying? Is that your accusation?
MS. BLATT: At -- at oral argument, yes, absolutely[.]
JUSTICE GORSUCH: I think you should be more careful with your words, Ms. Blatt.
Justice Gorsuch did not leave it there.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- I -- I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.
MS. BLATT: Okay. Let's pull it up.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. I think we're going to have to here, and I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase.
At which point Justice Gorsuch read to the court several instances where Osseo referenced schools as a “unique” subset of ADA and Section 504. And kept going until Ms. Blatt agreed to withdraw her accusation.
It was fascinating to listen to and to reflect on how, as parents, advocates, and lawyers, it is tempting to rush right into personal attacks.
And how counterproductive it is.
If Osseo had stuck with “it is inaccurate” instead of “it is a lie and inaccurate,” Justice Gorsuch would not have distracted from Osseo’s legal argument. That one word derailed Osseo's argument for a good few minutes.
My takeaway: When advocating or arguing the law, keep people on your team. Stick with the facts. Stay away from inflammatory words and personal attacks. Even when the temptation is high.
(Especially if you ever find yourself in front of Justice Gorsuch.)
