Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision to hear two significant school cases this term: Mahmoud v. Taylor and A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. Both cases have the potential to significantly impact school districts across the country, making them critical to watch for educational leaders. Here’s what you need to know about these cases and the key issues before the court.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Issue: whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise by compelling elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions without notice or the opportunity to opt out.
In October 2022, the school board of the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland announced it had approved a group of LGBTQ+ storybooks as part of the English Language Arts curriculum for use in the district. During the first year the books were used, parents were provided with notice and the opportunity to opt out of their use through agreements with individual principals and teachers. However, in March 2023, the school board announced that a notice and opt-out option would no longer be permitted. In response, several parents filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland claiming, among other things, that the “ideological view[s] or family life and sexuality” portrayed in the storybooks conflict with their religious views. Their complaint asserted that the board’s refusal to permit notice and the opportunity to opt out from use or discussions relating to the storybooks violated their free exercise of religion and due process rights to direct their children’s education.
The lower courts declined to issue an order that would require the district to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt out of instruction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks required students to behave contrary to their faiths or affirm any views contrary to their religious beliefs. Nor were parents prevented from discussing and contextualizing any contrary views at home.
The parents sought review by the Supreme Court in September.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
Issue: whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination related to their education.
A.J.T. is a minor student who suffers from epilepsy. Her epilepsy is severe in the mornings and prevents her from attending school until noon. A.J.T.’s parents requested evening instruction so she could have a school day closer in length to her peers. However, the district denied those requests. A.J.T.’s family filed a lawsuit against the district, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted the district’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the district could not be liable as it did not act with bad faith or gross misjudgment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court stated that while A.J.T. may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, she failed to prove that school officials acted with “either bad faith or gross misjudgment.” As a result, the court held that summary judgment was proper.
The requirement that public school officials act with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” is not required by the actual statutory text of the ADA or Section 504. The standard originated in the Eighth Circuit in 1982. Since then, other federal appellate courts have disagreed on whether to apply this standard, creating what is known as a “circuit split.” A.J.T.’s family contends that the standard the Eighth Circuit applied is inappropriate and a less rigorous standard should apply.
The parents sought review by the Supreme Court in September.
Although the Supreme Court has not yet set the date for oral arguments in either case, it is anticipated they will be argued in the spring, with a decision expected by the end of the court’s current term in late June. OSBA’s division of legal services will continue to monitor the cases and will provide updates as they become available. If you have questions in the meantime, please reach out to the division at 855-OSBA-LAW.