Left: Attorney Lisa Blatt, of Williams & Connolly LLP, poses for a photograph in front of the Supreme Court, Monday, April 8, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon); Right: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images).
Things got heated at the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in a case over what disabled schoolchildren need to prove when seeking damages for disability-based discrimination.
The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, is an appeal from a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that stems from a Minnesota school district’s failure to follow federal law to provide the accommodations needed by a student. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires all school districts to provide a “free appropriate public education” to children with disabilities. The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) works in tandem with IDEA and prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability both in and out of the school context.
A.J.T. is a child with severe epilepsy whose disability makes her unable to function at school in the morning due to frequent seizures early in the day. A.J.T. attended elementary school in Kentucky, and the school district accommodated her needs by providing evening instruction such that she received the same number of school hours as her peers. However, when A.J.T. moved with her family to Minnesota, she was refused a similar accommodation and only received three hours of schooling each day.
A.J.T. sued, and the courts held that the Minnesota district violated the IDEA by failing to provide an “appropriate” education. However, the courts found that although the district had been at fault, A.J.T was not entitled to money damages under the ADA because she had not sufficiently shown that the district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” — which is the legal standard required for children with disabilities to get monetary relief under the statutes.
A.J.T.’s family appealed and argued to the justices that forcing her — and by extension, all disabled students — “to satisfy a uniquely stringent” standard that is not required by others litigating disability discrimination is unfair.
Attorney Lisa Blatt, the lawyer who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman — more than 80% of them successfully — argued the case on behalf of the district. Not for the first time, Blatt got into a scuffle with several justices over her bold accusations that opposing counsel had been untruthful.
Justice Clarence Thomas began questioning by allowing Blatt to respond to A.J.T.’s attorney’s statements that the district was advancing a different argument to the justices than the one it made at the lower courts.
“Is this the same argument that you made below?” Thomas asked Blatt.
“I had an out of body experience listening to what we argued,” Blatt said of the arguments made by opposing counsel, Roman Martinez, who argued on behalf of the child and Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole Reaves, who argued in support of the child on behalf of the Department of Justice.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson interjected, “I’m over here really trying to figure out what you argued below,” and said that it “might be a little unfair” to characterize Blatt’s argument as entirely consistent throughout the litigation.
Blatt pushed back and denied any inconsistency.
“What is a lie and inaccurate is that we ever said that this court should take the same language and should define it differently,” Blatt said, referring to an argument advanced earlier by the DOJ. “They’re adding words to our mouth.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch interrupted Blatt’s rant.
“You believe Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying?” asked an incredulous Gorsuch.
“In oral argument? Yes, absolutely,” answered Blatt.
As Blatt tried to elaborate, Gorsuch cut in, with a warning.
“I think you should be more careful with your words,” the justice said.
“Okay well they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,” countered Blatt.
Chief Justice John Roberts jumped in and began to read from A.J.T.’s brief in an apparent attempt to provide context for the inconsistency her opponents had referenced.
“That part we never said,” Blatt interrupted, questioning a portion of the brief that quoted her client’s filing. “Are they quoting?”
“Well, they have quote marks around it,” responded the chief justice to a chuckling courtroom.
Blatt went on to frame her opponents’ argument as one that could be devastatingly unfair.
“Their view is all funding, in any school, even Harvard… the entire funding could be cut off because they didn’t fix the elevator,” Blatt hypothesized to another failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a disabled student.
“And now, federal funding is a big deal,” Blatt continued, making an obvious reference to the Trump administration’s recent threats to Harvard and other universities. “No government has ever threatened the loss of federal funding based on the Rehab Act, but you don’t need antisemitism any more, you don’t need encampments. You can just say you violated the reasonable accommodations.”
And she did not stop there. Rather, Blatt took a kind of oblique aim at all the justices and said, “Now this is a big deal — and I understand you don’t want to take on this case, but I didn’t bring this petition.”
“[The petition] cited your article, Justice Kavanaugh,” Blatt continued. “I can’t be faulted.”
Jackson interrupted Blatt again, this time, focusing the attorney on the question presented to the justices.
Shortly later, in an exchange with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Blatt swiped again at the high bench, warning the justices against deciding the case without issuing clear guidance on the issue at hand and advising that lower courts can get confused if a case is just remanded without further explanation.
“Well, it’s part of your job, Justice Kavanaugh, to set the law sometimes and I understand it’s easier for you and you have a lot going on not to set the law,” Blatt charged until she was shut down by Gorsuch, who interjected that he was “still troubled” by the suggestion that opposing counsel “lied.”
“Okay, let’s pull it up here,” was Blatt’s quick retort.
Gorsuch requested that Blatt “reconsider that phrase.”
“People make mistakes,” came Gorsuch’s response, sounding calm. “You can accuse people of making mistakes — but lying,”
“That’s fine,” Blatt interrupted repeatedly.
“Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,” said an exasperated Gorsuch. “Lying is another matter.”
Gorsuch next read from Blatt’s brief as Blatt peppered with interruptions of, “yep,” and “right” several times.
When Blatt tried to interrupt again and continue her argument, Gorsuch snapped, “I’m not finished.” The justice went on to ask that while reasonable people could disagree, couldn’t the argument in Blatt’s brief could be interpreted in precisely the way opposing counsel had characterized it in their comments to the bench?
“No,” said Blatt, then tried to continue.
“Ms. Blatt!” interrupted an audibly annoyed Gorsuch.
After a bit more exchange, Gorsuch finally demanded that Blatt withdraw her previous accusations of lying against opposing counsel — which Blatt finally did.
The fiery exchange, while unusual at the Supreme Court, was not the first time in recent history that Blatt has sparred with the justices. In a 2023 trademark case, Blatt sarcastically told Jackson during oral arguments, “I’m fine with you making up stuff.” Ultimately, though, Blatt won a unanimous verdict in the case from the justices.
You can listen to the full oral arguments here.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
