by Sylvia Mendoza
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2022-23 school year, approximately 7.5 million students, ages 3 to 21, were receiving special education services in U.S. public schools—which represents about 15% of all public school students. Today, federal laws offer protection for students with disabilities who attend public schools, protecting their rights and making sure they receive the services to which they are entitled.
That wasn’t always the case.
Prior to federal law protections, Jack Schneider, an education professor and director of the Center for Education Policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told neaToday, “Students with disabilities weren’t educated in most cases. They were turned away, and their families were told that the school didn’t have the facilities, didn’t have the resources to serve their kids.”
After two 1971 district court cases brought to light the lack of educational opportunities for students with disabilities, the U.S. Congress launched an investigation to determine the number of children with special education needs that weren’t being adequately served. The 1972 investigation, conducted by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, revealed that approximately eight million children required special education services. Of those students, 3.9 million were adequately having their educational needs met, 2.5 million were receiving a substandard education and 1.75 million weren’t in school at all.
In 1975, former President Gerald Ford signed into law Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. According to the law, all states that accepted money from the federal government were required to provide equal access to education for children with disabilities.
In 1990, the law signed by President Ford was amended and became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which established the requirement that children with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). That means that students with disabilities are entitled to specialized services, individualized education programs (IEPs), and the right to attend school in a regular education classroom when possible.
There are 13 disability categories covered under IDEA. Some of those categories include Specific Learning Disability, such as dyslexia; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Intellectual Disability, such as Down syndrome; Emotional Disturbance, for example, anxiety or bipolar disorder; Orthopedic Impairment, such as cerebral palsy; and Deaf-blindness.
In addition to IDEA, two other federal laws address discrimination against those with disabilities—the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both are federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, which includes public schools and institutions of higher education. The laws require reasonable accommodation in education for those with disabilities. For example, providing extended time for tests, services such as interpreters, alternative formats of educational materials, as well as making modifications to buildings to ensure equal access in all public schools.
When a school district fails to provide an appropriate education to a student with a disability, they, or their parents, can seek relief or compensation under these federal laws.
U.S. Supreme Court makes things easier
A recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for students with disabilities to bring discrimination lawsuits. The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, involved a teenage girl in Minnesota with a rare form of epilepsy. Her disability causes her to have near-daily seizures, usually in the morning or late in the evening. That made it unsafe for A.J.T. to attend school before noon. Her parents requested that Osseo Area Schools provide A.J.T. with evening instruction so that her school day was of comparable length to her peers. The school district denied the request.
In 2018, A.J.T.’s parents sued the school district for discrimination under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. A U.S. District Court in Minnesota ruled, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, the parents had not shown that the school acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.”
Since 1982, the Eighth Circuit Court applied a different standard for people litigating discrimination on the basis of disability under ADA and 504, when those cases concerned elementary and secondary education, explains Jennifer Valverde, a professor at the Education and Health Law Clinic at Rutgers Law School in Newark.
“A.J.T. is a really interesting case concerning what is the standard that should be applied when a court is deciding a disability discrimination case in the education context versus a public entity,” says Professor Valverde. “Basically, in every other non-education context, like suing a movie theater, they had one standard that they were applying, but they had a heightened standard that students had to meet if they were making claims of disability discrimination against school districts.”
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act required children with disabilities to satisfy the more stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when filing discrimination claims relating to their education.
In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with A.J.T. in a unanimous decision, overturning both lower court rulings. The Court’s decision makes it easier for students with disabilities and their families to seek monetary damages for alleged discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the Court’s unanimous opinion.
“We hold today that ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts and not a distinct, more demanding analysis,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import for A.J.T. and a great many children with disabilities and their parents. Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under the two federal laws.”
The Court offers clarification
Another special education case, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023, clarified procedures when bringing suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act after settling an IDEA dispute.
The case centered on Miguel Perez, a deaf student in Michigan. While in high school Perez was assigned a classroom aide. However, the aide was not trained to work with deaf students and did not know sign language. Shortly before graduation, the school notified Perez’s parents that Miguel would not qualify for graduation.
Perez filed an IDEA complaint with the Michigan Department of Education alleging that the school denied him an adequate education and violated federal and state education laws. Before a hearing on the IDEA claim, the parties settled, and the school agreed to pay for sign language instruction and any post-secondary education for Perez.
Perez also sued the school district and board of education in federal court under the ADA, claiming that the school discriminated against him by not providing the resources necessary for him to participate in class. Lower courts ruled against Perez stating that he needed to exhaust all “administrative remedies” under IDEA before filing suit under another federal law—in this case the ADA.
“The IDEA has been used as a shield to say you can’t pursue these other pathways of having relief or remedies,” explains Amy Saji, a professor at Seton Hall Law School and director of the Medical Legal Partnership Clinic at the Center for Social Justice.
In March 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Perez, citing that students with disabilities do not need to fully exhaust the administrative process with the IDEA in order to file claims under other civil rights laws. The outcome in this case means that Perez’s claim for monetary damages can go forward, returning to the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan.
“The Court really struck that down to say that’s not what the statute was intended for. Sturgis opened the door to federal courts to say, hey, parents can bring claims under the ADA for compensatory damages, even without the IDEA exhaustive requirement,” Professor Valverde says.
Professor Valverde also points to the 2017 case of Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, which preceded Perez v. Sturgis and was cited as precedent in the case. The Fry case involved a child in Michigan with cerebral palsy who was not allowed to bring her service dog to school. The parents filed suit against the school district for discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
A federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the claim for similar reasons to those in Perez v. Sturgis—the exhaustive requirement of IDEA. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a claim is not really about education, the plaintiff does not need to meet the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement. With its ruling in Perez v. Sturgis, the Court provided more clarification on the exhaustive requirement.
The hurdles for students with disabilities can be daunting.
“This is a group that has primarily been vulnerable to discrimination,” Professor Saji says. “Some districts are really great about enforcing special education and the rights for students with disabilities; some districts are very poor at that job in terms of the resources that they can provide. These systems are not built to protect families overall, but these cases are a good example of what these statutes were intended for. Meeting the standards protects parents and decreases the hurdles that they’re facing.”
Discussion Questions
- What do you think of the hurdles that students with disabilities and their families face? If you had to, would you fight to secure educational opportunities that you are entitled to? Explain your answer.
- Read the “Beyond the Special Education Rulings” sidebar. What do you think the benefits are for students with disabilities in attending general education classes? What could be potential drawbacks?
Glossary Words
affirm—to uphold, approve or confirm.
plaintiff—person or persons bringing a civil lawsuit against another person or entity.
precedent—a legal case that will serve as a model for any future case dealing with the same issues.
overturned—in the law, to void a prior legal precedent.
statute—legislation that has been signed into law.
This article originally appeared in the fall 2025 issue of Respect, NJSBF’s diversity and inclusion newsletter.
BONUS CONTENT: Beyond the Special Education Rulings
Under federal law, students with disabilities must learn in a classroom with non-disabled peers “to the maximum extent” possible. Some advocates say classrooms made up of only students with disabilities can limit their learning capabilities. Other advocates say that placing a student with disabilities in a general education classroom with no support can be harmful.
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, various states lag behind the 68% national inclusion rates for students with disabilities. For example, only 45% of New Jersey students with disabilities are in general education classrooms for at least 80% of the school day—that is less than any other state.
“There are certain districts, or states, where the default may simply be to place the child in general education and say, ‘Well, best of luck,’” Joe Novack, clinical director for Autism New Jersey, told The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit news organization that provides independent journalism on education. “New Jersey is probably doing a lot of things right, because it means we’re probably really customizing what makes sense for the individual.”
Other experts disagree.
“Research on the benefits of inclusion has not wavered,” Elizabeth Athos, Education Law Center’s Senior Attorney said in a press release. “The fact that New Jersey’s rate of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has been virtually stagnant while other states have improved is a strong wake-up call that the Legislature and Governor Phil Murphy’s administration must make a bigger and more sustained commitment to integrating public school classrooms.”
The research shows that including students with disabilities in general education classes promotes higher academic outcomes and better social skills for them, increases self-esteem, while fostering a greater acceptance and respect from their non-disabled peers
As an example, Terri Joyce, of Cinnaminson, whose son has Down syndrome, continually advocates for him to be educated in a general education classroom. She told nj.com that when he was educated in a classroom with children who had trouble communicating, his speech development stalled. Once he was back in a general education setting, after a period of adjustment, he thrived.
“It’s much bigger than just his education and being included in the classroom,” Joyce told nj.com. “Being included in school means he’s more included in life, and he’s more included in our community, and he’s more valued.”
Resources for students with disabilities have limitations. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in the 2024-25 school year, 74% of elementary and middle schools had difficulty filling special education teaching vacancies, especially in rural districts, urban schools and low-income communities. This shortage can lead to heavier workloads for educators and less individualized attention for students.