The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up a case centering on what standard students must meet in order to bring claims of disability discrimination at school.

The high court said this month that it will hear the case known as A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools.

At issue is whether students with disabilities must show that schools acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to claim that their rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The case was brought by the parents of a Minnesota teenager known in court papers as Ava who has severe epilepsy and needs assistance with everyday activities like walking and toileting.

Ava’s seizures are most frequent in the morning hours, so she is unable to attend school before noon. For years Ava’s parents sought unsuccessfully to have their school district, Osseo Area Schools, provide Ava evening instruction so that she could have a full day of school starting at noon.

Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the school district failed to provide a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. However, the court dismissed discrimination claims brought under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

“When the alleged ADA and Section 504 violations are ‘based on educational services for disabled children,’ a school district’s simple failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is not enough to trigger liability,” reads the opinion, which cites a 1982 case. “Rather, a plaintiff must prove that school officials acted with ‘either bad faith or gross misjudgment.'”

The appeals court determined that Ava “may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent,” but said “that’s just not enough.”

Now, Ava’s parents want the Supreme Court to weigh in, noting that federal courts are divided about this higher standard, and in circuits where it is used, the bar is only applied to disability discrimination cases in schools.

“As a general matter, plaintiffs suing under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act can obtain injunctive relief without proving intentional disability discrimination, and they can recover compensatory damages by proving that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to their federally protected rights. But the Eighth Circuit and four other circuits have erected a more stringent test for children with disabilities who face discrimination in the school setting,” reads the family’s petition to the Supreme Court.

The Osseo Area Schools argue that all circuits expect students with disabilities to show that schools had an intent to discriminate, even if they may word that expectation differently.

“Although petitioner’s parents disagree with some decisions the district made, those disagreements do not evince discriminatory intent under any standard used in any circuit,” the school district’s attorneys wrote in court filings.

Further, the district argues that the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard strikes the right balance between the need to defer to the expertise of school officials on educational matters “while still reining in abuses by educators who violate professional standards, deliberately target students with disabilities, or completely ignore their needs.”

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, the National Center for Youth Law, the National Disability Rights Network, the Learning Rights Law Center and the Education Law Center jointly filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court siding with Ava highlighting that there is no requirement of “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment” in the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and that this standard has never been applied to similar claims brought outside of educational settings.

“This case presents an exceptionally important issue for children with disabilities and their families,” said Roman Martinez, an attorney who will represent Ava at the Supreme Court. “Both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act provide much-needed relief for educational discrimination, which often has life-altering consequences for children with disabilities. Yet, as this case illustrates, an atextual rule being imposed in five circuits makes it far harder for them to prove their claims — for no good reason, and with real consequences. We hope to persuade the justices to reject the Eighth Circuit’s approach and vindicate Ava’s rights and those of other children with disabilities.”

Attorneys for Ava say it’s likely that the case will be heard by the Supreme Court in April.