Supreme Court Sympathetic to deaf student in ADA case

[NewYorkExpress]

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-state-government-education-d10553f4ea6f73eef5585427de0fe370

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed sympathetic to the arguments of a deaf student who sued his public school system for providing an inadequate education, a legal challenge important for other disabled students and their families.

The question for the justices involves a federal law that guarantees disabled students an education specific to their needs. During 90 minutes in the courtroom, liberal and conservative justices suggested they were inclined to rule for the student, Miguel Luna Perez.

His lawyer, Roman Martinez, said that for 12 years, the public school system in Sturgis, Michigan, “neglected Miguel, denied him an education and lied to his parents about the progress he was allegedly making in school.”

“This shameful conduct permanently stunted Miguel’s ability to communicate with the outside world,” Martinez said.

Justice Elena Kagan indicated that she believed the argument that Perez had done “everything right” in pursuing his case.

“It’s hard for me to see how that’s not true. What should Miguel have done differently from what he did do in this case?” Kagan said. The liberal justice suggested to a lawyer for the school system, Shay Dvoretzky, that such cases are pursued “by parents who are trying to do right by their kids.”


......

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was among the justices who seemed inclined to agree with Perez. The liberal justice said it was her understanding that “Congress thought that dual actions at least in some circumstances were possible and that was fine.”


Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, noted that rejecting an IDEA settlement offer means risking not being able to seek attorneys fees. Her fellow conservative, Justice Neil Gorsuch, suggested that the text of the IDEA also supports Perez.

This one looks like it'll be at least 5-4 in favor of the student (the liberals, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch and maybe one or both of Roberts and Kavanaugh).

[Make America Grumpy Again]

Excellent news

[NewYorkExpress]

The Supreme Court rules for Perez unanimously, Gorsuch gets the opinion.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday for a deaf student who sued his public school system for providing an inadequate education. The case is significant for other disabled students who allege they were failed by school officials.

The case the justices ruled in involves Miguel Luna Perez, who attended public school in Sturgis, Michigan. Perez’s lawyers told the court that for 12 years the school system neglected the boy and lied to his parents about the progress he was making, permanently stunting his ability to communicate.

The justices ruled that after Perez and his family settled a complaint against the school system — with officials agreeing to pay for additional schooling and sign language instruction — they could pursue money damages under a different federal law. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a eight-page opinion for the court that the case “holds consequences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children with disabilities and their parents.”

Mildly surprised that there were no dissents here, given Alito and Thomas's willingness to ignore optics (which is more so than Gorsuch, Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh it seems).

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Supreme Court rules for Perez unanimously, Gorsuch gets the opinion.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday for a deaf student who sued his public school system for providing an inadequate education. The case is significant for other disabled students who allege they were failed by school officials.

The case the justices ruled in involves Miguel Luna Perez, who attended public school in Sturgis, Michigan. Perez’s lawyers told the court that for 12 years the school system neglected the boy and lied to his parents about the progress he was making, permanently stunting his ability to communicate.

The justices ruled that after Perez and his family settled a complaint against the school system — with officials agreeing to pay for additional schooling and sign language instruction — they could pursue money damages under a different federal law. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a eight-page opinion for the court that the case “holds consequences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children with disabilities and their parents.”

Mildly surprised that there were no dissents here, given Alito and Thomas's willingness to ignore optics (which is more so than Gorsuch, Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh it seems).

The school was very clearly criminally negligent here:

It remains difficult for Perez, who emigrated to the United States from Mexico at age 9, to make himself understood. Perez’s lawyers say the school system failed him by providing an aide who was not trained to work with deaf students, did not know sign language and in later years left him alone for hours at a time. After over a decade, Perez did not know any formal sign language and communicated through invented signs that anyone unfamiliar with his unique signing did not understand, his lawyers have said.

Meanwhile, the school awarded him inflated grades and his parents believed he was on track to earn his high school diploma. Just before graduation, however, his family was told he qualified only for a “certificate of completion."

And I guess using this to strike down the ADA or IDEA would be a bridge too far even for Thomas or Alito: why have a government at all if you're going to do that?

[MarkD]

One of the things I am never going to deny about the current crop of Supreme Court Justices is that they are all judicial mediocrities. To me that means that they will often, but not always, base their legal decisions on their own personal values. But this is not one of those occasions. Clearly, all of the Justices did their job correctly -- they interpreted the law objectively. The fact that they did so surprises some users here does not surprise me. Too many people adhere to the cynical belief that Supreme Court Justices always base all of their legal decisions is far off the mark.
"It was never altogether realistic to conclude that behind all judicial dialectic there was personal preference and personal power and nothing else." -- Alexander Bickel, "The Least Dangerous Branch," page 80, (1962).