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 teen 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, the teen whose family took her decade-long fight for school accommodations to the nation’s highest court.

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

Earlier this month, by a 9-0 vote, the nation’s high court 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 due to 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 Circuit Court of Appeals, families were barred from suing if they couldn’t prove school officials intentionally discriminated against their children.

This month’s decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts clears the way for the Tharpes and other families who had been barred from suing schools to now take school districts to court.

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

“Maybe this is too optimistic, but my hope is that you don’t see more lawsuits,” Martinez 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 and an attorney with the National Disability Rights Network, said families will still face a steep climb to prove discrimination.

“There won’t be as much impact as folks think,” he said. “The Supreme Court has corrected the manifest injustice of having the higher standard. That should not have been there.”

In an email, Erin Toninato, executive director of the Minnesota Administrators for Special Education, said that while the Supreme 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 at the state’s largest school district, Anoka-Hennepin, said the Supreme Court decision aligns the legal test for student disability discrimination cases in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 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,” an Anoka-Hennepin 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, and the “bar for these claims remains high.”

The district does not expect to change practices in response to the decision, the statement read, adding: “While special education law is complex, District 196 provides frequent training to staff to maintain compliance with the law.”

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, a board member of The Arc Minnesota, a disability advocacy nonprofit, is the parent of a child with an IEP. She said the advocacy community welcomes the national ruling, but it may not change much.

“It’s kind of hard to get excited about maintaining the status quo,” she said, adding that it would have been “absolutely devastating” to the community if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the district and thus changed the standard for educational complaints.

The ruling also comes in the context of other changes for families of children with disabilities, Christenson said, including changes to the U.S. Department of Education, Medicaid cuts and cuts to special education at the state level.

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 “it doesn’t mean it’s going to be any smoother of a path for parents to leverage that ruling and seek meaningful resolution.”

“In theory, this is amazing,” she said. “In practice, it’s still a very hard road for all of us now.”