by Chaim Yehuda Meyer
On Monday, April 28th, I arrived in Washington D.C.
bright and early to hear arguments in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area
Schools, a Supreme Court case involving a middle school student named Ava
Tharpe who suffers from epilepsy. Because her seizures are worse in the
morning, she wants to be able to come to school in the afternoon and receive
further instruction at home in the evening. This is an accommodation that was
made for her as an elementary school student in Tennessee. However, when the
Tharpe family moved to Minnesota, the local school district denied this
accommodation, and the family sued.
Ava’s case has gone up the court
system from the administrative level to the court of appeals. Now, the Supreme
Court is being asked to decide whether it’s enough for children with
disabilities to show that school districts acted with indifference in denying
them special education services, a lower standard, or if the children must show
that the district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a higher burden
of proof. The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the current standard adopted by
many courts around the country is unfair to students with disabilities. (Currently,
employees who sue for discrimination don’t have to show intent.) The school
district is arguing that if the lower standard is applied, then schools that
have a good faith disagreement with parents over the education that needs to be
provided will still have to pay. The government agrees with the plaintiff that
the more lenient standard for parents to sue should be applied.
I saw Ava and her parents as I
entered the courthouse. This made the law seem even more real. We can read
about or observe cases, but when you see the person affected by the law, it
really has an effect on you.
The Supreme Court building is
presently covered by a tarp as extensive, external renovations are being done.
The inside of the building has busts of many previous judges, a gift shop, and
interactive exhibits on Supreme Court cases. Visitors can attend arguments on a
first come/first serve basis. Arguments are heard on Mondays, Tuesdays, and
Wednesdays from October through April and begin at 10:00 a.m. Visitors should
arrive as early as 7:30, even though the Court itself does not open until 9:00.
You can expect heavy security. No food or drinks are allowed. No one is allowed
to bring electronic devices into the courtroom; they must be stored in small
lockers. It is not recommended to bring heavy coats or large bags. If you would
like to plan a visit, more information is available at supremecourt.gov.
Usually, two cases are heard a
day, but when a case has multiple parties, the Court might only hear one. You
can expect to be in the courtroom from 9:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. If two cases
are heard, you may leave after the first one. However, if you are only
interested in hearing the second case and arrive late, it is not likely you
will be allowed into the Court. Therefore, expect to be seated for the first
case of the day as well.
The parties to a case and their
families are given seats in the courtroom. Attorneys who are admitted to
practice in the Supreme Court are assigned a special section to sit in.
Additionally, there are sometimes groups of attorneys who are sworn in as
Supreme Court lawyers before the oral arguments of the day are heard. If there
is a hot button case, many people will want to attend. In such an event, an
adjacent room is set up where visitors can hear arguments.
On the days when the Court hears
arguments, each side is given a half hour to make their case with rapid fire
questions from the justices throughout. The petitioner’s attorney gets to make
closing arguments afterward.
The courtroom itself is quite
small, but grand. The justices sit on a high bench, and the attorney stands at
a podium facing them. There is a table for each side of the case with piles of
papers, briefs, and notebooks on each. Security and courtroom pages sit
throughout, ready to do the bidding of the judges or tackle an emergency should
the need arise.
Despite the smallness of the room,
you feel a certain sense of awe and grandeur each time you enter, a feeling
that has not been lost on me despite my numerous visits. I am admitted to practice
in the Supreme Court but have not filed any briefs or made oral arguments
before the Court. This is always an option, however. (Sometimes, organizations
with an interest in a case will file an “amicus brief,” which is a memo to the
Court stating why one side or another should prevail.)
As someone with a passion for
helping people with disabilities, I have a special interest in this case. If
Ava prevails, it will help all our children receive the services they need. If
the school district prevails, schools can simply do nothing as kids are denied
services. The Supreme Court sets the precedent for all states to follow.
In a statement to the Court after
oral arguments were heard, Roman Martinez, the attorney who argued for Ava
Tharpe, said, “We appreciate the Court’s close consideration of this case and
the important issues it raises. It makes no sense to require students with
disabilities to satisfy a more demanding test to prove disability
discrimination than all other plaintiffs under the same laws. We are hopeful
that the justices will agree to overturn the Eighth Circuit’s erroneous ruling
and let Ava’s claims proceed.”
All in all, visiting the Supreme
Court was an exciting and educational experience. The law impacts us all. As
civic-minded members of the Jewish community, we should learn how our court
system works. This will also help us advocate for our own needs better. A
rising tide raises all ships.
The Supreme Court is expected to
issue its decision in Ava’s case in late June.
Chaim
Yehuda Meyer is an attorney and writer living in Brooklyn, New York. He writes
for Jewish publications both local and nationally on community events, local
politics, divrei Torah, book reviews, and legal news. Mr. Meyer can be reached
at howard.jay.meyer@gmail.com.
