We will hear argument first this morning in case 24-249, AJT versus ASEO area schools.

Mr. Martinez.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the District has conceded Ava's question presented.

Both sides now agree that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply the same legal standards to all plaintiffs

and that it's wrong

to impose any sort of uniquely stringent test on children facing discrimination at school.

That concession fully resolves this case. The Eighth Circuit rejected Ava's claims under

Manaehan's two-tiered asymmetric approach. That ruling can't stand. The district wants to preserve its

victory under a new theory it invented after dropping the indefensible two-tiered approach it defended

below. Now, they say that the statutes apply a bad faith or gross misjudgment test to all

plaintiffs, not just school children protected by the IDEA. That's exactly the opposite

of what they told you at the search stage, where they said that no bad faith or intent is required

outside the IDEA context. The district's new theory violates the text, history, and purpose of both

statutes. It contradicts decades of regulations. It defies at least five precedents

of this Court and decisions from virtually every circuit. It would also revolutionize disability law,

stripping protections from vulnerable victims, and gutting the reasonable accommodations needed

for equal opportunity. If you address this new argument, you should reject it out of hand, but you shouldn't address it,

because it's so clearly procedurally barred many times over.

Whether you look at this through the lens of judicial estoppel or waiver or Rules 15 and 24,

one thing is clear.

The district can't win this case based on a radical new theory that goes beyond Ava's

question presented and directly contradicts what they told the lower courts and this court

...