Gorscuh scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange

Fox News - Apr 29th, 2025

In a surprising and heated exchange, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch confronted Lisa Blatt, a seasoned attorney from Williams & Connolly, during oral arguments in the case A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. The dispute arose over Blatt's accusation that the plaintiffs, representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, were 'lying' about the public school's refusal to provide necessary at-home education accommodations. Gorsuch sternly reprimanded Blatt, emphasizing the gravity of accusing opposing counsel of lying and urged her to reconsider her words, which she ultimately did.

This exchange highlights the intense scrutiny and high stakes involved in Supreme Court cases, particularly those dealing with disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The case itself underscores the ongoing legal challenges faced by students with disabilities in securing appropriate educational accommodations. Such interactions also reflect the heightened sensitivity of the judiciary towards maintaining decorum and fairness in legal proceedings, especially when addressing issues that significantly impact individuals' rights and quality of life.

Supreme Court Americans With Disabilities Act Neil Gorsuch Lisa Blatt Rehabilitation Act Disability Discrimination A.J.T. V. Osseo Area Schools

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and timely account of a significant Supreme Court case involving disability rights, focusing on a dramatic exchange between Justice Gorsuch and attorney Lisa Blatt. While the factual accuracy of the reported exchange is supported, the article would benefit from a broader exploration of the case's legal implications and perspectives from other stakeholders. The piece is accessible and engaging, but its impact is somewhat limited by the narrow focus on the confrontation. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to public discourse on disability rights and the legal responsibilities of public schools, though it could be strengthened by greater balance and transparency.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on a heated exchange between Justice Neil Gorsuch and attorney Lisa Blatt during oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The main facts, such as the nature of the case (A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools) and the legal framework involving the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, are correctly stated. However, there are elements that require further verification, such as the specifics of the accusations made by Blatt and the exact wording of the exchange. The story also mentions broader implications for disability rights, which are accurate but need more context regarding the potential legal outcomes.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt, with some mention of the broader legal context. While it provides a detailed account of the interaction, it lacks perspectives from the plaintiffs or other justices, which would provide a more balanced view. The focus on the confrontation may overshadow the case's implications for disability rights, which are critical to understanding the full context.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and presents information in a clear and logical manner. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. However, the focus on the confrontation may detract from the clarity of the broader legal issues at stake. A more balanced presentation of the case's implications and perspectives would enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article cites specific individuals involved in the case, such as Justice Gorsuch and attorney Lisa Blatt, lending credibility to the reported exchange. However, it primarily draws from a single news outlet, which may limit the diversity of viewpoints and depth of analysis. Including additional sources or expert opinions could enhance the article's reliability and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the case.

Transparency

The article provides a clear account of the exchange and the case's legal basis but lacks transparency regarding the methodology of reporting. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or the basis for some claims, such as the broader implications of the case. Greater transparency in these areas would strengthen the article's credibility and help readers understand the context and potential biases.