U.S. Supreme Court decision clears way for students with disabilities to sue — but will they?

With its recent unanimous decision siding with a Maple Grove teenager over disability accommodations, the U.S. Supreme Court removed decades of precedent that effectively blocked students with disabilities in Minnesota and elsewhere from suing schools for discrimination.

That could have broad implications for Minnesota school districts, with some legal experts saying the decision could prompt more lawsuits against school districts and increase special education costs for schools.

“It’s always hard to figure out ... but it certainly rebalances the playing field in a way that this should lead schools to be more careful,” said attorney Roman Martinez, who represents Ava Tharpe, whose family took her decadelong fight for school accommodations to the nation’s highest court.

Many education leaders, parents and school district officials, however, say it’s too soon to see how the Supreme Court decision could change special education accommodations or disability discrimination claims.

In a 9-0 vote this month, justices sided with the Tharpes in their case against Osseo Area Schools and ruled that families alleging special education discrimination do not have to prove public school officials acted in bad faith when failing to make needed accommodations.

The case, which centered on Tharpe’s request for a later school day because she had a rare form of epilepsy that makes her prone to seizures in the morning, can now return to a lower court.

Since a 1982 case before the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, families were barred from suing if they couldn’t prove school officials intentionally discriminated against their children.

But Martinez said he doesn’t think the ruling will lead to a wave of lawsuits.

“Maybe this is too optimistic, but my hope is that you don’t see more lawsuits,” he said. “My hope is that you see more compliance. No one really wants to litigate these issues because from the school side, obviously, litigation can be expensive.”

Greg Abbott, a spokesman for the Minnesota School Boards Association, said his organization would reserve comment until it sees if district courts determine the threshold for proving discrimination is lower.

Others said they don’t expect that to happen.

Dan Stewart, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul and an attorney with the National Disability Rights Network, said families still face a steep climb to prove discrimination.

In an email, Erin Toninato, executive director of the Minnesota Administrators for Special Education, said that while the court removed the need for families to prove the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, “We remain confident in the services that are being provided. We don’t expect a sudden spike in legal action.”

She added: “Each student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is developed through a team process and is based on their specific needs. ... Preventing issues through the IEP process remains the best approach.”

Leaders of the Anoka-Hennepin School District, the state’s largest, said the Supreme Court decision aligns the legal test for student disability discrimination cases in the Eighth Circuit with other federal circuit courts.

“However, the district does not see the opinion as changing the level of support of commitment that school districts have in supporting the needs of students with disabilities,” a district spokesman said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan schools agreed that the ruling offers “additional clarity” about the legal standard for evaluating such claims. She said the “bar for these claims remains high.”

“While special education law is complex, District 196 provides frequent training to staff to maintain compliance with the law,” the statement said.

Jessica Heiser, an attorney with Minnesota Disability Law Center, said, in general, the “disability community celebrated this unanimous decision as a tentative win and the school community is fearful of litigation costs soaring.”

Maren Christenson Hofer, a board member of The Arc Minnesota, a disability advocacy nonprofit, is the parent of a child with an individualized education plan. She said the advocacy community welcomes the national ruling but that the decision may not change much.

“It’s kind of hard to get excited about maintaining the status quo,” she said.

A Supreme Court decision in favor of the Osseo district would have been “absolutely devastating” to the community and changed the standard for educational complaints, Christenson said.

Tracking Supreme Court rulings and federal changes can add more confusion to an often opaque and emotional process of advocating for a child who needs accommodations, Christenson said.

“I think for your average parent, they’re focused on day-to-day life and figuring out how to make sure their child’s needs are met,” she said.

Stacey Klein, a parent and advocate who pushed for years for better academic interventions for her son, who has dyslexia and ADHD, said she is celebrating the ruling. But, she said, “it doesn’t mean it’s going to be any smoother of a path for parents to leverage that ruling and seek meaningful resolution.”