Supreme Court hears arguments on case involving deaf student
On Wednesday, January 18, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a case involving a deaf student from Michigan who sued a school district seeking financial compensation for allegedly violating the ADA by failing to provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter.
The deaf student’s name is Miguel Luna Perez.
Miguel Luna Perez: Hello. My name is Miguel Luna Perez, and I’m twenty-seven years old.
Alex: I will provide a recap using information from the filing in the case: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and from the SCOTUSBlog. I will also show you two video comments by Perez and his attorney, Roman Martinez.
To be clear, the case is not to determine whether the school district violated the ADA or not. It is to decide whether Perez is able to sue the school district to seek financial compensation for ADA violations. Lower courts said Perez could not because he had not exhausted administrative processes under another federal law, the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). This is what the dispute is based on.
Here is the background of Perez’s case.
In 2004 when he was nine years old, he moved with his family to the U.S. from Mexico. He attended the Sturgis Public School District in Michigan from 2004 to 2016.
Perez’s attorneys said in the court filing that “Sturgis failed to provide Miguel with a qualified sign language interpreter at any point during his 12 years at Sturgis. Sturgis failed to provide Miguel with sufficient exposure to any language to enable him to acquire even basic proficiency in that language, whether it be ASL, Signed English, or English.”
Perez’s attorneys also said the school district misled Perez’s parents to make them believe that he received quality instruction and that he was doing well in school.
In 2016, Perez had an advocate who helped to bring in representatives from the Michigan School for the Deaf so they could become involved in his IEP team meetings. That led to him enrolling as a student at MSD beginning in 2016, where he received full access to ASL.
A psychologist found that Perez had “linguistic deprivation” due to severe neglect from the Sturgis school district. The psychologist said if Perez had access to a language earlier, he likely would have been able to attend college.
——--
[Sponsored video from Convo: www.convorelay.com]
—------
So Perez’s situation may be a violation of two federal laws, the ADA and the IDEA. Perez’s attorneys had already filed a claim for a violation of the IDEA with the Sturgis school district and reached a settlement that included providing financial support for Perez to attend MSD and other services. But this settlement did not resolve the question of whether the school district violated the ADA and was liable for damages.
Perez’s attorneys filed a claim under the ADA seeking damages. The school district convinced federal courts to throw out the case by saying Perez did not exhaust his processes with the IDEA.
Perez’s attorneys appealed all the way to the Supreme Court by making arguments that Perez has already done all he could with the IDEA and is seeking relief under the ADA.
That’s the recap of the case.
There were four interpreters during the Supreme Court arguments. Two of them were hearing interpreters and the other two were Certified Deaf Interpreters. This is an illustration of what it looked like in the room. The illustrator’s name is William Hennessy Jr and he provided permission for me to share.
[Full-screen image] Credit: William J Hennessy Jr / CourtroomArt.com
The SCOTUSBlog and several other news outlets said that the majority of the justices seemed to lean towards supporting Perez’s case by expressing skepticism that Perez should be barred from pursuing his ADA claim due to the IDEA processes. Some justices signaled that they did not agree.
I asked Perez’s attorney what outcome they are hoping for after the Supreme Court arguments. Here is a video statement, which is signed by a Deaf attorney who works in the same law firm, Latham & Watkins.
Heather Artinian: Thank you for the question. My name is Heather Artinian. I’m a Deaf attorney here at Latham & Watkins. With me is Roman Martinez. He is a partner on the case and argued in front of the Supreme Court yesterday. I was not working on the case but we wanted to provide a statement in ASL. So I will go ahead and start.
Roman (conveyed by Heather): I very much appreciate the court’s close attention to this case. Its decision will have important implications not only for Miguel but also for parents and students all over the country. Miguel and his family did everything right here and they should not be penalized for accepting a favorable settlement from the school on his IDEA claims. We hope that the Supreme Court will reverse the decision from below and allow Miguel to pursue his other claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thank you.
Alex: Thank you. Here is a video statement from Perez.
Miguel Luna Perez: For twelve years, I went to Sturgis Public Schools. I got some sign language there, but I wanted more. There was one other deaf student, but we couldn’t communicate with each other. Nobody interpreted for me at Sturgis.
I started at Michigan School for the Deaf in 2016. When I started at MSD, I was going to get a Certificate of Completion. At MSD, I learned so many new words and signs. I learned construction. I helped others in my class to measure, and I got to build furniture. I learned about building houses. I want to build houses as a job. I graduated from the Michigan School for the Deaf in June 2020 with a diploma.
My case at the U.S. Supreme Court is hard for me to understand. Part of it is about having no interpreter at Sturgis. Part of it is that some judges said I can’t tell my story about what happened. I want to tell you what happened to me. I wish I could have gone to college to learn more. I don’t have a job, but I want to have one. I want to make my own decisions.
Alex: Thank you for the comment. The Supreme Court usually issues its final decisions, its opinions, in June.