The debate over a child’s education gets heated
A.J.T. A.J.T. The case concerns the treatment of children with disabilities and, in particular, the statutory requirement not to discriminate based on a disability. In several lower courts, students who claim discrimination must meet a higher standard of proof than is required by other courts. A.J.T., the student in this case is a victim of discrimination. before the court, lost under that view in the lower courts and wants the justices to reject that dual standard.
Arguing on behalf of A.J.T., Roman Martinez contended that the case is over, pointing to the school district’s new-found agreement that the standard should be the same in all contexts. Martinez told the justices the school district’s change of position should make them validate the unitary standard, and send the case to the lower court for selection of the appropriate standard.
The Justices seemed to be receptive to this idea. The main question they asked Martinez was to get him to admit that, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, “it will still be up to the court to decide on remand which standard is appropriate …,” There were a lot of questions probing the differences in semantics between A.J.T.’s position and that of the federal government who filed a brief in support of her. But there were hardly any questions asking if the standard should be based on whether unequal treatment took place in school Justice Neil Gorsuch was enraged by Blatt’s tone and interrupted her to ask, “Do you believe that Mr. Martinez or the Solicitor-General are lying?” Gorsuch said: “I think that you should be careful with your words, Miss Blatt.” Blatt, not backing down, replied, “Well, they ought to be more careful …”
Gorsuch let the argument continue for a few minutes before returning to the subject to say that “I’m still troubled by your suggestion” that your friends from the other side had lied …,. I would ask you to reconsider this phrase. People make mistakes. What followed was the most heated discussion between a judge and an advocate I’ve ever heard in my decade at the court. Gorsuch, feeling he had been interrupted, asked Blatt to finish. He then read for several minutes long quotes from Blatt’s filings, which he felt suggested that she was “arguing for a
unique rule” within the context of education, as Martinez and Reaves stated. Gorsuch asked Blatt, after a long series of readings: “Would you withdraw your accusations?” When Blatt replied: “I will withdraw it,” Gorsuch concluded “Thank you.” It’s over. Justice Amy Coney Barrett for example described it as a “pretty big sea change” and asked, “
why should we do it, when… it didn’t come up before their reply brief
e haven’t other circuits adopted” the district’s views? Similarly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was all but incredulous at Blatt’s insistence that disability statutes do not require accommodation for people with disabilities.
I think we can expect a succinct opinion, sometime next month, sending this back to the lower court to rule on the correct standard.
Posted in Featured, Merits Cases[were]
