SCOTUS and AJT v. Osseo Area Schools

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities.

Ronald Mann, Unanimous court rebuffs higher standard for discrimination claims by children with disabilities, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 12, 2025, 6:32 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/unanimous-court-rebuffs-higher-standard-for-discrimination-claims-by-children-with-disabilities/ 

In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, the Supreme Court considered the obligation of schools to refrain from discriminating on the basis of a disability. Specifically, the justices considered whether students face a higher bar in challenging such activity than disabled individuals do in other contexts. Thursday’s opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by all the justices, firmly rejected the higher standard adopted by the lower courts.

The case involved a pair of federal statutes that bar discrimination on the basis of disability, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Together with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, those statutes regulate the accommodations that local schools afford children with disabilities.

In part because of the detailed procedures the latter act establishes for identifying appropriate individualized educational programs, known as IEPs, for individual students, many lower courts have been reluctant to allow students to recover damages based on claims of discrimination without proving an actual intention on the part of the school districts to discriminate. The Supreme Court on Thursday rebuffed that approach, holding that the standard for proving discrimination is the same for all those with disabilities, students or otherwise.

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

 Julia Metraux at Mother Jones:

Minnesota teenager Ava T. lives with seizures that predominate in the morning, preventing her from attending school safely before noon. When her suburban Minneapolis school district refused to update her individualized education plan—a disability accommodation guaranteed by federal law—to allow at-home evening instruction to compensate, Ava and her parents sued in 2021.

A district court sided with Ava and her family—her last name is withheld—ruling in 2022 that the school district had violated her rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But separate complaints say that the district had breached Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which include extensive disability rights provisions. In five of the 13 federal circuit courts, including the Eighth Circuit, which covers Minnesota, families suing schools under Section 504 and the ADA have to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a standard the Eighth Circuit said Ava’s case did not meet—despite acknowledging that the family “may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent.”

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Ava’s case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, in January. Its ruling will decide whether that tougher standard—bad faith is notoriously hard to prove—applies nationwide under Section 504 and the ADA when suing schools. A ruling against Ava and her family could be a major setback for student disability rights enforcement and an equally major boon for the Trump administration’s plan to gut the Department of Education at the expense of disabled kids

Justice Jackson's Daughter

In The Politics of Autism, I write about the everyday struggles facing autistic people. 

At CNN, John Fritze and Lauren del Valle report on a new memoir by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:

Jackson writes at length about her older daughter, Talia, who is academically gifted but who sometimes struggled with social interactions and transitions at school. After years of navigating what Jackson describes as “outright trauma,” her daughter was diagnosed with autism.

“There is no use in pretending that we weren’t completely devastated by the long-overdue confirmation of what I had suspected all along: that our older child was on the autism spectrum,” Jackson writes. At the same time, Jackson described the news as something of a relief.

“We could end our denial,” she writes.

“As Talia learned to advocate for herself through the years, she would educate us about how she was not ‘a person with autism’ but, rather, was autistic – by which she meant that her autism was an identity as much as her being Black and female,” Jackson writes. “Autism was another lens through which she engaged the world, with full awareness of her strengths and mindful of her trials.”

Disabilities and the End of Chevron Deference

Uncertainty and complexity are major themes of The Politics of Autism.

ASAN:

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) condemns the United States Supreme Court ruling on two combined cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The decision overturns a decades-old legal principle known as the Chevron Doctrine, which gives federal agencies the authority to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws when they create federal regulations. These regulations are made legally binding through a rulemaking process that is shaped by the public servants within federal agencies, the input of subject area experts across fields, and anyone who chooses to share their opinion. Instead, federal courts will now have the final say in circumstances where knowledge of highly specialized, complex, and technical issues is required. This ruling will weaken the regulatory authority of all federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

...

This decision invites challenges to the forty years of legal precedents relying on Chevron. While these cases and the existing Code of Federal Regulations are not automatically overturned by Loper and Relentless, many will be challenged in the months and years to come. Future regulations are also under threat. Agencies may be less ambitious in fulfilling their mandates, protecting the public, and using taxpayers’ resources well in the face of increased risk that courts will undo their work. The endangered regulations include the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Settings Rule, the final rule implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the final rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments, and the final rule regarding section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Olmstead at 25

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss court cases involving the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

At STAT, Timmy Broderick writes about the 25th anniversary of the Olmstead decision.

Prolonged, involuntary stays in institutions used to be the norm for people with disabilities, as books like “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” have portrayed. But after two Georgia women with mental illness and developmental disabilities sued to leave a state hospital, the Supreme Court decreed in 1999 that siloing people with disabilities in hospitals was discriminatory and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This landmark ruling, known as the Olmstead decision, augured a shift away from institutional care for long-term services and towards the most integrated setting possible — treating people with disabilities not as outcasts but as community members who can make choices and decide their own futures. The name refers to the main defendant, Tommy Olmstead, the commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources at the time. Some experts refer to it as the Brown v. Board of Education for people with disabilities because of its dramatic expansion of civil rights in the face of forced segregation and a rejection of “separate but equal” institutions.

...

Twenty-five years after the Olmstead decision, home and community-based services (HCBS) is the norm rather than the exception for Medicaid recipients. National Medicaid spending on HCBS routinely exceeds spending on institutional services, and nearly 10 million people received some form of HCBS in 2019. Most states now have “Olmstead plans” that sketch out how to further grow community care, too.

But those gains are unevenly distributed, and disability advocates have had to sue several states to ensure their compliance.

...

Twenty-five years after the Olmstead decision, home and community-based services (HCBS) is the norm rather than the exception for Medicaid recipients. National Medicaid spending on HCBS routinely exceeds spending on institutional services, and nearly 10 million people received some form of HCBS in 2019. Most states now have “Olmstead plans” that sketch out how to further grow community care, too.

But those gains are unevenly distributed, and disability advocates have had to sue several states to ensure their compliance.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in IEP Case

In The Politics of Autism, I write about individualized education programs (IEPs):

These meetings can turn nasty, and many autism parents have “IEP horror stories.”  One parent told me that she tried to ease tensions by bringing cookies to the meeting.  The principal then shouted to his staff, “Nobody touch those cookies!”  Another parent writes of asking for a sensory diet, a personalized activity plan that helps the student stay focused (e.g., low noise levels for those with a sensitivity to sound).  “After just proclaiming she is extremely knowledgeable about Asperger’s Syndrome, from the mouth of a school psychologist after we suggested our son needed a sensory diet. `Our cafeteria does not have the ability to provide this.’”

 Lauren Sforza at The Hill:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a father about whether he had the right to video record meetings with school officials about his son’s special education program.

The nation’s highest court turned down the appeal from Scott Pitta, a father of a son with special needs, who wanted to video record a meeting between himself and officials in the school district of Bridgewater, Mass., about his son’s Individual Education Program (IEP).

An IEP is a document that details what services a student with disabilities needs to receive to meet their educational goals. The petition notes that schools are required to consult with parents about a student’s IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Pitta informed school officials he would be video recording meetings with them about his son’s IEP after he realized that the minutes taken on previous meetings were “incomplete,” according to the petition.

The issue arose after school officials said that his son no longer required an IEP, which Pitta disagreed with, according to the petition. In a Sept. 20, 2022, meeting with officials, Pitta requested that the session be recorded “because he did not trust that the Respondents’ own minutes would accurately reflect the relevant statements.”

SCOTUS Says Disability Tester Case Is Moot

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities.  Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, was a Supreme Court case about whether disability testers could sue businesses for ADA violations without visiting them.  Eric Michael Garcia at NBC:

Acheson had wanted the Supreme Court to rule despite Laufer backing out of the case. But, again, the court decided the case was moot and, thus, spared us a ruling that could have been disastrous for disabled Americans.

Tuesday was just the latest example of people with disabilities dodging a bullet from this conservative Supreme Court.

Tuesday was just the latest example of people with disabilities dodging a bullet from this conservative Supreme Court. In March, in what was a surprise unanimous decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has previously ruled against people with disabilities, the Supreme Court ruled that a deaf student who’d sued in a case demanding sign language interpreters under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act could still bring a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In a case that raised the question of whether people could sue Medicaid when state programs aren’t properly administered, Susie Talevski, who says her late father was mistreated in an Indiana care facility, told Sara Luterman at The 19th News that people warned her that she would lose the case and that her loss would weaken people with disabilities’ ability to file lawsuits.

But with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the majority opinion for the court, the court ruled 7-2 that such lawsuits could proceed, causing a massive sigh of relief from those of us who feared the court would rule the opposite way.

After Tuesday’s decision, there might be some who say the Supreme Court is not as bad as disability advocates have said, or argue that the court has shown itself to be in favor of people with disabilities. But in the Talevski case, it did not rule that there was an ADA violation, only that Talevski’s lawsuit could proceed. And in the case of the deaf student, the court didn’t go as far as disability rights activists wanted.

It’s clear that Tuesday's decision doesn’t mean the ADA is safe.

“We emphasize, however, that we might exercise our discretion differently in a future case,” Barrett wrote. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “I would not dismiss this case as moot. There is no question that we have authority to address Laufer’s standing.”

ADA Test Case Moot?

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

Kelsey Reichmann at Courthouse News Service:

The Supreme Court’s review of how disability accommodations are enforced throughout the country appeared to be dead on arrival Wednesday.

“This is like dead, dead, dead in all the ways it can be dead,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

The Barack Obama appointee added what the high court was being asked to do felt unjudicial.

“It doesn’t seem like something a court should do,” Kagan said.

Justice Samuel Alito had a similar view of the case, characterizing it as “dead as a door nail,” and suggesting a ruling in the case should be classified as an advisory opinion.

The case that might not be a case before the court on Wednesday concerns Deborah Laufer’s claim that Acheson Hotels violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide accommodations information on its website. The merits of that argument were far from the justices’ concern, though, as the heart of the dispute was if Laufer could bring a suit in the first place.

...

In the time since the justices took up the case, the hotel updated its website to comply with the ADA and Laufer dismissed her suit against them. Acheson also no longer owns the Maine hotel.

These details left the justices with a dispute where both sides no longer had an interest in the final ruling.

ADA Enforcement as Campaign Issue

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

Andrew Pulrang at Forbes:

ADA enforcement and efforts to weaken the law have been important disability issues since the law passed in 1990. The latest threat is Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, a Supreme Court case about whether disability advocates should be allowed to sue businesses for ADA violations even if they haven’t personally visited them. Disability organizations are again sounding the alarm and have submitted detailed amicus briefs advocating a broad interpretation of who can help enforce the ADA – a law which was deliberately crafted to depend on citizen enforcement more than on government oversight.

If the Supreme Court weakens the ADA, what policy changes would politicians support to remedy the situation? And how would presidential candidates weigh potential court nominees’ positions on the ADA and other disability rights laws? Would they appoint justices who would defend disability rights, or weaken them?

The Perez Case

 In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. II also discuss the day-to-day challenges facing autistic people and their families. 

Robyn Powell at The Regulatory Review:

The Perez case that was decided by the Supreme Court in March highlights such concerns. Between the ages of 9 and 20, Miguel Luna Perez attended Sturgis Public School District in Michigan. Because he is deaf, Miguel was entitled to have an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter in his classes. However, the assigned aide lacked qualifications and provided inadequate support, hindering Miguel’s learning and communication. Moreover, Sturgis school officials misrepresented Miguel’s progress, leading the Perez family to believe he would graduate on time, only to be informed months before graduation that he would not receive a diploma.

...

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court adopted the Perez family’s interpretation. The Court clarified that section 1415(l) applies only to lawsuits seeking relief available under the IDEA. It emphasized that “remedies” and “relief” are synonymous in the context of section 1415, as treated in other parts of the statute.

As a result, the exhaustion requirement did not bar the Perez family’s ADA lawsuit because the damages sought were not available under the IDEA. The Court’s decision strengthens the implementation of FAPE rights, allowing students to seek monetary damages under non-IDEA civil rights laws and injunctive relief through IDEA administrative procedures.

Ultimately, the Court’s recent ruling significantly shifts the power dynamic between students with disabilities, their families, and school districts. It empowers students and parents by providing them with essential tools to address and rectify violations of disabled students’ educational rights.

SCOTUS Case: HHC v. Tavelski

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

From the American Association of People with Disabilities

On Thursday, June 8, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in a Supreme Court case vital to preserving civil rights for disabled and other low-income people: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana (HHC) v. Talevski.

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) released the following statement in response:

AAPD is pleased that the power to hold state, municipal, and other government entities accountable for abuses and violations of rights was upheld in the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in HHC v. Talevski.

The court issued a 7-2 decision, with Justice Jackson writing for the majority. In this case, the family of Mr. Gorgi Talevski, a Medicaid recipient and a person with disabilities, sued the Marion County-owned agency that managed Mr. Talevski’s care in Indiana. In their lawsuit, the Talevski family alleged that the county-owned nursing home abused Mr. Talevski and violated his rights when the nursing home involuntarily transferred him to more restrictive facilities far away from his family and chemically restrained him. Health and Hospital Corp (HHC) of Marion County argued that the Talevski family did not have a right to sue them at all and brought the case to the Supreme Court. HHC questioned whether people who receive public benefits through programs like Medicaid and SNAP could sue states, counties, and other local government entities when their rights are violated.

This ruling upholds and affirms these kinds of lawsuits as a means of pursuing justice and enforcing civil rights for people who receive public benefits. This is a win for Medicaid beneficiaries, disabled individuals, low-income people, and anyone else who relies on government funding for housing, healthcare, and more. AAPD collaborated with other partners to file an amicus briefing in this case.

AAPD President and CEO Maria Town said, “This ruling is an enormous victory in the ongoing fight for equality and inclusion of disabled and other multiply marginalized people.

In HHC v. Talevski, disabled people’s use of litigation to address abuses by state entities is affirmed. Accountability for violations of Medicaid law and other disability rights legislation, such as the ADA, often relies on a private right of action to enforce the civil rights these laws establish. Lawsuits have been and will continue to be a vital tool in the continued protection and advancement of disability rights. As threats to civil rights grow, people with disabilities must use every opportunity possible to assert our dignity.

AAPD joined other disability and low-income advocates across the country in consistent awareness and education efforts on this case. As we reflect on the solidarity that contributed to this victory, we express our sincere gratitude to the Talevski family, who in their time of loss and grief, chose to pursue justice for their loved one and ultimately contributed to affirming civil rights for millions of Americans.”

Luna Perez v Sturgis Public Schools

 In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. II also discuss the day-to-day challenges facing autistic people and their families. 

From the Supreme Court

Petitioner Miguel Luna Perez, who is deaf, attended schools in Michigan’s Sturgis Public School District (Sturgis) from ages 9 through 20. When Sturgis announced that it would not permit Mr. Perez to graduate, he and his family filed an administrative complaint with the Michigan Department of Education alleging (among other things) that Sturgis failed to provide him a free and appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). See 20 U. S. C. §1415. They claimed that Sturgis supplied Mr. Perez with unqualified interpreters and misrepresented his educational progress. The parties reached a settlement in which Sturgis promised to provide the forward-looking relief Mr. Perez sought, including additional schooling. Mr. Perez then sued in federal district court under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeking compensatory damages. Sturgis moved to dismiss. It claimed that 20 U. S. C. §1415(l) barred Mr. Perez from bringing his ADA claim because it requires a plaintiff “seeking relief that is also available under” IDEA to first exhaust IDEA’s administrative procedures. The district court agreed and dismissed the suit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Held: IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not preclude Mr. Perez’s ADA lawsuit because the relief he seeks (i.e., compensatory damages) is not something IDEA can provide.

SCOTUS Case on IDEA and ADA

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. II also discuss the day-to-day challenges facing autistic people and their families. 

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed ready to side with a deaf student who is seeking financial compensation from a Michigan school district that failed to provide him with a qualified sign-language interpreter.

The student, Miguel Perez, alleges that the school district violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lower courts threw out his lawsuit, ruling that a different federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, required him to “exhaust” his claims against the district – that is, fully pursue them in administrative proceedings before going to federal court. During over an hour of debate on Wednesday, however, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow Perez’s lawsuit to go forward.

Representing Perez, lawyer Roman Martinez stressed that for over 12 years, the Sturgis Public Schools “neglected Miguel, denied him an education, and lied to his parents about the progress he was allegedly making in school.” That “shameful conduct,” Martinez said, “permanently stunted Miguel’s ability to communicate with the outside world.”

Perez initially brought claims under both the ADA and the IDEA through state administrative channels. An administrative judge threw out the ADA claim on the ground that he lacked authority to hear it, and Perez reached a settlement with the school district on the IDEA claim. Perez then tried to revive the ADA claim in federal court.

The school district now argues that Perez’s IDEA settlement “extinguishes” Perez’s right to seek financial compensation under the ADA, Martinez said. “But Congress,” he continued, “didn’t punish kids for saying yes to favorable IDEA settlements.”

Representing the Sturgis Public Schools, lawyer Shay Dvoretzky countered that the primary purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all students receive the education to which they are entitled. The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement, Dvoretzky insisted, simply channels all claims through the administrative procedures first, rather than allowing parents to go straight to court.

From oral argument in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I don't know that your view of how school districts are going to operate is always going to be true. As between the two, it strikes me that actually it's the parents that have the greater incentive to get the education fixed for their child. 

MR. DVORETZKY: I think that sometimes that -- 

JUSTICE KAGAN: This isn't litigation being run by a lot of rapacious lawyers, you know. This is litigation being run by parents who are trying to do right by their kids. 

Supreme Courrt Case on Medicaid

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss health care issues and state Medicaid services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

A case before the Supreme Court today could have implications for people with disabilities such as autism. A September 30 release from the Arc:

Six leading disability advocacy organizations, with the support of Kellogg Hansen, have filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the estate of Gorgi Talevski, who alleges that the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana (HHC) abused and neglected him while in a nursing home. The amicus brief explains why it is important that individuals, particularly those with disabilities, have the ability to sue state and local governments when their civil rights are violated under Medicaid and other public programs. The case, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, is scheduled to be heard on November 8, 2022.

The amicus brief focuses focuses on the harmful impact the case will have on people with disabilities, who have long faced pervasive discriminatory treatment within American society. People with disabilities and their families have relied on lawsuits to enforce Medicaid’s antidiscrimination protections, including the landmark Olmstead v. L.C. case. If providers of Medicaid services abuse or mistreat beneficiaries or take away or deny their benefits, private lawsuits – regularly brought by The Arc and its partners – are often the only way to hold government entities accountable and ensure people get the life-saving therapies and everyday living support services they need. Many of these lawsuits will no longer be possible if the Court rules in favor of HHC. Full access to Medicaid services and the right to enforce these services are crucial to achieving community integration for people with disabilities. The brief urges the Court to reaffirm the private right of action to enforce Medicaid guarantees and disability rights.

“This case is a large-scale assault on disability rights around the country,” said Peter Berns, CEO of The Arc of the United States. “Medicaid is the primary source of healthcare for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, the vast majority of whom want to live with dignity in their homes and communities. Protecting their right to private action when such rights are violated would ensure they aren’t unnecessarily institutionalized and prevent the unraveling of antidiscrimination progress set forth by the ADA for over 30 years.”

“The Supreme Court has signaled that it may strike another blow against civil rights in this case,” said Ira Burnim, Legal Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “An expansive ruling could put at risk the ability of individuals to seek relief in federal court for violations of key civil rights statutes prohibiting discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, or disability.”

“Medicaid covers personal attendants and other in-home services and supports that disabled people need to live in the community and participate in society. Enforcement is a critical right,” said Claudia Center, Legal Director of Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

“Congress intended that people with disabilities have the right to enforce Medicaid, just as they do Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The disability community has used this private right of action to enforce vital civil rights protections repeatedly,” said Maria Town, American Association of People with Disabilities President and CEO. “Any decision from the Supreme Court that does not recognize this right would go against Congress’ wishes, decades of legal precedent, and ultimately, put at serious risk the healthcare, community integration, and civil rights that people with disabilities have long fought to secure.”

In Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, HHC is appealing a ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that Mr. Talevski and his family could sue to enforce his rights under the Nursing Home Reform Act provisions of Medicaid. For 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that people can sue if their rights are violated under safety net programs. The inability to pursue legal recourse will affect millions of people who rely on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and more.

The amici are also concerned that a broad ruling in favor of HHC may undercut individuals’ rights to sue to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting discrimination based on sex), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting disability discrimination).

Major health organizations, legal experts, and scholars also uphold the importance of private suits under Medicaid and other federal statutes. Over twenty other amicus briefs have been submitted in support of the defendant, Gorgi Talevski, who is being represented by Ivanka Talevski in his death.

 

CVS Drops Case

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

Michael Roppolo at CBS:

The CVS pharmacy chain has reached an agreement with a coalition of disability rights organizations and dropped a legal case that had made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the dispute next month, and the ruling could have had far-reaching effects on disability rights.

The company formally withdrew its complaint Thursday and announced a new partnership to work with four groups, including the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

"We've agreed to pursue policy solutions in collaboration with the disability community to help protect access to affordable health plan programs that apply equally to all members," a CVS spokesperson told CBS News. "Any further legal proceedings will take place in district court when the case is remanded."

The case, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. vs. Doe, stemmed from a lawsuit filed against CVS by multiple people who take prescription drugs for HIV/AIDS. The plaintiffs objected to changes to the company's terms that meant they could not opt out of mail-only delivery or utilize another pharmacy with experience handling their special medication needs. They argued it had a discriminatory impact on them, even if that wasn't the company's intent.

"When encouraging CVS to withdraw this case, the disability community asked CVS to find a different regulatory or policy venue other than the Supreme Court to address its concerns and agreed to work with CVS to do so," Maria Town, president and CEO of AAPD, told CBS News in a statement.

"A core [tenet] of the disability rights movement is 'Nothing about us without us,' and that's what this partnership achieves," Town added.

Disability Law and Civil Rights

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

Ari Ne'eman, a founder of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, writes at The New York Times:

Last week, the Supreme Court acquiesced to another attack on the voting rights of all Americans. In a 5-3 decision, the court blocked a trial judge’s ruling permitting Alabama counties to offer curbside voting as a reasonable accommodation to disabled voters.

...

Alabama’s ban on curbside voting was challenged by People First of Alabama, an advocacy organization run by people with developmental disabilities, using the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. People First was represented by civil rights groups like the N.A.A.C.P. and the Southern Poverty Law Center, and its challenge to to the voting restrictions was noteworthy not only because it sought to protect the rights of disabled Alabamians, but because it used a disability rights law to fight a restriction designed to suppress the turnout of Black voters.

This is not unprecedented. Disability rights law offers a valuable set of tools for civil rights advocacy of all kinds. Because the ADA requires reasonable accommodations and modifications to enable accessibility, people with disabilities can seek changes to generally applicable policies that are much harder to challenge through other statutes. And because disability is more prevalent among racial and ethnic minorities, disability rights statutes can be applied to a broad range of civil rights problems.

Recent litigation challenging the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule, restricting the entry and naturalization of immigrants likely to use social-welfare programs, makes use of disability rights law to protect immigrants. Because the administration sought to penalize immigrants for making use of public services disproportionately or primarily relied upon by people with disabilities, the door was opened for disability and immigration activists to work together in support of a common goal.

Nor is the A.D.A. the only disability rights law that offers a useful vehicle for advancing racial justice. During the Obama administration, the Department of Education sought to combat the segregation of minority children into special education classrooms by leveraging the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Though the Trump administration tried to roll back these protections, the courts soon restored them.

Disability Groups Oppose Trump's SCOTUS Nominee

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss court cases involving the  civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

From the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network:

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network opposes the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In light of the critical role that the Supreme Court plays in interpreting and enforcing laws that affect people with disabilities, all nominees to our nation’s highest court must be evaluated carefully based on their known record. Judge Barrett’s record on the Seventh Court of Appeals and her writings and presentations as faculty at Notre Dame Law School expose her hostility to the laws that protect people with disabilities and our ability to live fulfilling lives in the community, including the Affordable Care Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Our community is likely to experience serious harm if Barrett is confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. We further oppose efforts to rush confirmation on an impossibly short timeline in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
...

ASAN urges the Senate to reject Barrett’s nomination. The next Supreme Court Justice should be someone who honors the work, life, and legacy of Justice Ginsburg by protecting our access to health care and protecting civil rights. For more information on ASAN’s positions on any of the issues discussed in this statement, please contact Sam Crane, our Legal Director, at scrane@autisticadvocacy.org.

From the Center for Public Representation:

Today, CPR joined more than 50 other national, state, and local disability advocacy organizations in a letter sent to Senate leadership and Senate Judiciary committee leadership in opposition to the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court to fill the seat left open by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg was a strong advocate for people with disabilities and author of the majority opinion in Olmstead v. L.C., which affirmed that people with disabilities have a civil right to live, work and participate in their communities and found that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a type of discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Her replacement should be one that furthers, rather than damages, her legacy.

Judge Barrett’s record raises significant concerns for the disability community. Of particular note, she has written that she views the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which provides critical protections for people with preexisting conditions and has drastically improved access to and quality of care for millions of people with disabilities, as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case challenging the law, California v. Texas, on November 10, and the Senate’s currently extremely expedited schedule to confirm Judge Barrett means she would participate in that argument. CPR, along with 18 other national disability rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in that case, defending the ACA and explaining its importance to disabled people.

In her current role as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she also recently dissented from an opinion that determined that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) public charge rule “inescapab[ly] . . . penalizes disabled persons in contravention of the Rehabilitation Act.” The public charge rule puts in place a new test for people who are applying for visas or green cards. It looks at people’s health, including whether they have a disability, and whether they have used or might one day use public benefits, including Medicaid-funded home and community-based services on which many people with disabilities rely. CPR and other disability organizations filed an amicus brief in the case, detailing the discrimination disabled immigrants may face as a result of the rule. Litigation is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court shortly.

Despite her concerning record, Judge Barrett’s nomination process has been extraordinarily rushed. A nomination that, if confirmed, would result in a lifetime appointment, should be considered carefully and given appropriate scrutiny. The speed with which this process has moved is a disservice to the institution of the Supreme Court and is particularly concerning given the Senate’s inability to pass desperately need coronavirus relief during a pandemic that has killed over 200,000 people in the US.

Read the letter in full here. More detail on Judge Barrett’s disability record is available here.

RBG and Disabilities

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. 

The Arc on the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Often lost in the day to day of life are the big moments in history that make today possible. Today, a life in the community for millions of people with disabilities is possible because of the actions of those who came before them, that led to justice. We mourn the loss of one of those champions, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion in the landmark ruling affirming that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination.

“Thirty years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act transformed the country in important ways, changing expectations for the lives of people with disabilities. Thanks to the work of countless committed advocates, we have taken meaningful steps toward the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Two advocates that carried the promise of the law all the way to the Supreme Court were Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson. Their bravery and refusal to live behind the dark walls of institutions led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead v. L.C. decision in 1999. The case established that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act – and that people with disabilities have a right to live in the community rather than institutions.

“In the opinion, Justice Ginsburg focused on the fact that ‘institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable of or unworthy of participating in community life.’

“This big moment, and her staunch affirmation of the human dignity of people with disabilities and their rightful place in the community of their choice, fundamentally changed the course of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities. With this history in our hearts, we will carry on our fight for inclusion and justice for all people with disabilities,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc.

From Ginsburg's concurrence in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (h/t Robyn Powell)

 Including individuals with disabilities among people who count in composing “We the People,” Congress understood in shaping the ADA, would sometimes require not blindfolded equality, but responsiveness to difference; not indifference, but accommodation. Central to the Act’s primary objective, Congress extended the statute’s range to reach all government activities, §12132 (Title II), and required “reasonable modifications to [public actors’] rules, policies, or practices,” §§12131(2)–12132 (Title II). See also §12112(b)(5) (defining discrimination to include the failure to provide “reasonable accommodations”) (Title I); §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring “reasonable modifications in [public accommodations’] policies, practices, or procedures”) (Title III); Bagenstos, supra, at 435 (ADA supporters sought “to eliminate the practices that combine with physical and mental conditions to create what we call ‘disability.’ The society-wide universal access rules serve this function on the macro level, and the requirements of individualized accommodation and modification fill in the gaps on the micro level.” 

Ria Tabacco Mar at WP:

Apart from her legendary dissents on the Supreme Court of the United States, Ginsburg is perhaps best known for the six cases she argued before the court as director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, a position I’m privileged to hold now. In 1973, the year Ginsburg had her first argument before the high court, she and the Women’s Rights Project co-founder, Brenda Feigen, filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina on behalf of Nial Ruth Cox, a Black woman who had been forcibly sterilized in 1965 as part of a gruesome state eugenics program targeted at people with mental disabilities.

 

Couirt Case on Tax-Credit Plan

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  Vouchers and charter schools are part of the ongoing debate.

From the Autism Society:

The Autism Society signed onto a friend of the court brief developed by the National Disability Rights Network, The Arc of the United States, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), and other advocacy organizations in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue asking the Court to uphold the decision made by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating Montana’s private school tax-credit scholarship program as it is harmful to students with disabilities. While families petitioning the court suggest that the program would help students with disabilities, school vouchers and tax-credit programs like Montana’s actually hurt students with disabilities by redirecting public funds to private schools that are largely unbound by the federal laws in place for over four decades that protect the rights of students with disabilities.

When students with disabilities use vouchers or tax credits to attend a private school, typically they forfeit their rights mandated by federal law —including the right to an appropriate, individualized education—because the statute’s key provisions do not apply to private schools. At least seven states have voucher programs that require parents to explicitly waive all or most of their disability rights protections under federal law to participate. In other states, parents often do not realize the rights they are forfeiting: 83% of parents of students with disabilities in such programs report that they receive inaccurate or no information on the loss of those rights, according to a federal watchdog report. The Court has scheduled to hear oral arguments on January 22, 2020.

Opposition to Kavanaugh

In The Politics of Autism, I write about relevant court cases. 

More than 100 disability organizations have come out against the SCOTUS nomination of Judge Kavanaugh.

Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) at Time:

Judge Kavanaugh has shown us what he believes about disabled Americans. In Tarlow v. D.C., he ruled that those with mental disabilities shouldn’t have the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies. In Baloch v. Kempthorne, he declared that businesses’ profits are more important than our health. And in Johnson v. Interstate Management Company, he decided that it’s okay for employers to discriminate against us, too.

ASAN has more detail:

Judge Kavanaugh has ruled that people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities do not have any right to a say in our own health care. In Doe ex rel. Tarlow v. D.C., Judge Kavanaugh ruled against two women who had been forced to have abortions and one woman who was forced to have eye surgery. The D.C. agency that serves people with developmental disabilities had consented to all three procedures without discussing them with the women. Judge Kavanaugh wrote that because the women lacked “capacity” to make their own medical decisions independently, they had no right even to be consulted. This decision dramatically delayed the women’s ability to obtain compensation for the harm they suffered.

The United States has a long history of eugenic policies that hurt people with disabilities. People with disabilities, especially people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, have been forced to have sterilizations and abortions, and our children have been taken away from us. These policies often are based on the assumption that people with disabilities should not have a say in our own health care. Judge Kavanaugh’s decision in Doe is an echo of these devastating policies, and his nomination threatens our right to parent, make our own reproductive and other health care decisions, and control our own lives and bodies.