Filed: March 5, 2025

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: Amicus brief explaining that Section 504 and ADA claims in the education context should not be held to a higher standard of proof, and that plaintiffs need not show that a school district acted in “bad faith” or with “gross misjudgment” to prevail on their disability discrimination claims.

Excerpt: “In this brief, amici review case examples in which, time and again, the bad-faith-or-gross-misjudgment standard is deployed to the detriment of children with disabilities in K-12 schools. As indicated, a defendant’s bad faith or gross misjudgment is exceedingly difficult to prove. So, even schoolchildren who experience severe discrimination based on their disabilities are frequently denied much-needed compensatory damages. Our case review shows that, on the other hand, under the appropriate standard-the standard applicable to everyone outside the K-12 school setting-these schoolchildren would have been compensated for the harms caused by the discrimination that Section 504 and the ADA seek to remedy.”

Case Documents:

• AJT Amicus Brief

Press Release

• National Disability Rights Organizations Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Rights of Youth with Disabilities in Key Education Case

Filed: November 8, 2024

Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Overview: Amicus brief explaining that the availability of compensatory damages and broad injunctive relief is essential in safeguarding the rights of people with disabilities under the ADA, and in fulfilling Congress’s goal of promoting inclusion and ending discrimination.

Excerpt: “The availability of comprehensive remedies under Title II serves essential functions beyond merely compensating individuals who have been subjected to discrimination. These remedies play a crucial role in achieving Congress’s broader goals in enacting the ADA and ensuring the statute’s effectiveness as a tool for eliminating disability discrimination in American society. Discrimination can inflict a complex web of injuries on people with
disabilities, ranging from immediate economic losses to long-term limitations on educational and professional opportunities, as well as dignitary harms that affect one’s ability to participate fully in society. Comprehensive remedies acknowledge this reality and provide courts with the tools necessary to craft relief that truly makes injured individuals whole. Robust remedies also deter discrimination. When public entities face the prospect of significant liability for discrimination, they have stronger incentives to voluntarily comply with the ADA’s requirements.”

Case Documents:

• Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District Amicus Brief
• Payan Explainer Blog

Filed: December 23, 2013

Court: United States Supreme Court

Overview: Amicus brief urging the court to reject an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasizing the importance of courts consulting clinical standards in their analysis.

Excerpt: “After decades of intensive study, mental disability professionals have a substantial understanding of what an individual’s score on an IQ test can tell us and what it cannot. There is a strong consensus among psychologists, psychiatrists, and other clinicians, as well as their professional associations, that imposing an arbitrary IQ cutoff score of 70 is wholly inconsistent with our scientific understanding of these instruments. Florida courts responsible for adjudicating Atkins cases are precluded from fairly evaluating all of the essential evidence that has probative value in making that determination. Evidence about a defendant’s impaired adaptive functioning—in this case, clearly impaired starting in childhood—cannot be ignored merely because of a judicially-imposed rule which is neither clinically nor scientifically justified. In Atkins, this Court invited States to devise ‘appropriate procedures to enforce the constitutional restriction’ against executing individuals with [intellectual disability]. The Florida Supreme Court’s arbitrary rule prevents consideration of relevant evidence and excludes from the Constitution’s protection a considerable portion of those persons who have mental retardation. It therefore cannot be deemed “appropriate.” Effectively reducing the group of individuals entitled to that protection by means of an arbitrary rule can hardly be deemed to be “enforcement” of the right that this Court announced.”

Case Documents:

• Hall Amicus Brief

Press Releases:

• Disability Case at the U.S. Supreme Court: What You Need to Know
• The Arc Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Constitutional Rights of People With Intellectual Disability on Death Row
• The Arc Responds to U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Hall v. Florida
• The Arc Responds to Florida Supreme Court’s Decision to Vacate Death Sentence for Freddie Lee Hall in Florida

Related Media:

• New York Times: Court Extends Curbs on the Death Penalty in a Florida Ruling
• Slate: The Death Penalty Just Got a Tiny Bit Saner
• Washington Post: The death penalty is incompatible with human dignity
• NPR: Florida’s IQ Limit For Death Penalty Isn’t Constitutional, Supreme Court Says
• Disability Scoop: In Shift, Supreme Court Moves Away From ‘Mental Retardation’

Filed: July 18, 2024

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief alongside other disability rights organizations arguing that Supreme Court precedent requires courts to refer to clinical standards when determining intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

Excerpt: “In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the United States Supreme Court held that executing defendants with intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequently, in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), in accord with the clinical consensus, the United States Supreme Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for intelligence quotient (“IQ”) scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts’ adherence to the appropriate clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (hereinafter “Moore I”), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments requires that adjudications of intellectual disability in death penalty cases be “informed by the views of medical experts” and that the non-clinical factors adopted in Ex parte Briseño, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) may no longer be used because they create an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed. Following the Supreme Court’s lead, this Court has held that Texas courts ‘must be informed by the current medical diagnostic framework for assessing intellectual disability’ when determining whether a person has intellectual disability. Petetan v. State, 622 S.W.3d 321, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Moore I, 137 S. Ct. at 1044. Courts must insist on the use of the clinical framework in evaluating Atkins claims. Otherwise, they risk violating the Eighth Amendment and unconstitutionally sentencing individuals to death.”

Case Documents:

• Milam Amicus Brief
• Milam Opinion
• Milam Concurrence

Press Releases & Explainers:

• Advocates Fight to Protect Texas Man With Intellectual Disability from Execution
• Explainer: Understanding the Fight to Protect People With Intellectual Disability From Execution

Related Media:

• NPR Texas Standard: Advocacy groups work to keep people with intellectual disabilities off of death row