Awkward Arguments

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a deaf student can sue his school for its failure to provide him a public education tailored to his needs. Because the decision allows for the possibility of two separate lawsuits, it could give parents more leverage in negotiating with public schools over assistance for children with disabilities.

Miguel Luna Perez enrolled in the Sturgis, Mich., public schools starting when he was 9 years old. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, the district was required to give him an appropriate public school education. But instead of providing Perez with aides able to translate class material into sign language, as promised, the aides were not trained in sign language at all, and often were absent from classes.

Because Perez received As and Bs on report cards, his parents thought he was on track to graduate. But toward the end of his last year in high school, they were informed he would not receive a diploma. After the parents filed a complaint with the state, the school district settled the case, agreeing to pay for future training at the Michigan School for the Deaf.
Conservative and liberals split at Supreme Court over Biden student loan plan
Law
Conservative and liberals split at Supreme Court over Biden student loan plan

But Perez wanted compensation for past damages — loss of income and emotional distress. He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against people with disabilities. That was the technical question before the Supreme Court: whether he could sue for past damages under a different statute.

Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the answer was yes, he could.

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:57 am

This is the right outcome, as unanimous case usually are, but I don't think the supreme court should have heard the case at all. It's not a constitutional case.

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:31 pm

I had to pick up the devil child today so I was in the car early and heard the Hannity show. He was interviewing someone involved in the Michael Cohen interrogation. He had said that Cohen claimed multipole times to have acted alone and even when offered the opportunity to turn Turmp in to protect himself stuck to his story. but that later in the interrogation he said he'd do, "F-ing anything, I won't spend a day in jail." I didn't catch who the guest was but being on Hannity I was immediate suspicious, I was curious if anyone had heard this story from another source? I'm not sure when I'll have time to Seach so I thought I'd give it a try here.

Edit: I should add this is an weird case for me because literally everyone involved are known liars. And I haven't followed it all that closely because I think we'd be better off without any of them.

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:31 pm

I should add this is an weird case for me because literally everyone involved are known liars.

Mysterious Cat wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:32 pm

The Supreme Court is the supremest of courts, so they end up handling a lot of Constitutional law. But they are not limited to doing so, and they will do regular statutory interpretation if e.g. there is a split in the national circuits that needs to be resolved.

Z is for Zangie wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:53 pm

I never heard any such thing, and I would think they would mention it on The Dispatch or The Bulwark, both of which I subscribe to