Unanimous Supreme Court makes it easier to sue schools in disability cases

[Polybius]

Source: NPR

The Supreme Court on Thursday, in a narrow ruling, made it easier for students with disabilities to sue to enforce their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws enacted to ensure that disabled children get appropriate schooling.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor wrote separate, concurring opinions — joined, respectively, by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

At the center of Thursday's opinion was Ava Tharpe, a teenage girl who suffers from serious disabilities caused by a rare form of epilepsy. Tharpe needs assistance with everyday tasks like walking and using the toilet. And she has so many seizures, mostly during the morning hours, that her public school in Kentucky arranged her schedule to be in the afternoon only, including a teacher giving her instruction at home in the early evening.

But when Tharpe's family moved to Minnesota for her father's job, her new school in the Twin Cities refused to accommodate her late day schedule. As a result, her school class time was just 65% of what her peers received.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/12/nx-s1-5431521/supreme-court-disability-lawsuits-schools

---

Another unanimous opinion.

[DarthDem]

1. Ugh, Legal Journalism

The ruling wasn't "narrow" in any sense. It was unanimous and quite broad.

[elleng]

2. Written by Nina Totenberg, for NPR.

Headlines are often misleading.

[ToxMarz]

3. I thought the same thing

I guess narrow is in the eye of the beholder.

[ruet]

5. It Was Probably AI.

It has probably, during "training", digested the term "narrow ruling" more than others in regards to decisions covered by media.


Oh, it's just Nina Totenberg.

[Mr.WeRP]

8. Narrow is in reference to how the decision may be applied

Not that it was a close vote

[onenote]

9. Correct. Indeed, the majority opinion expressly describes the decision as "narrow."

"We will not entertain the District’s invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented. See South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Alabama, 526 U. S. 160, 171 (1999); Sorrell, 549 U. S., at 165. The question before us “is a narrow one, and we see no need to do more than answer that question in today’s decision.” Id., at 171−172.

So maybe those criticizing the NPR story should give it some further thought.

[Jacson6]

4. But the NPR article says it was a narrow ruling,

Bad NPR, BAD BAD BAD!