In a ruling with significant implications for the education system, attorney Andrew Sullivan—an expert in constitutional law and a member of Newsom Legal’s strategic litigation team—secured a landmark judgment in favor of a student with a disability who was rejected by a private university based on criteria that the court deemed discriminatory.
The case was decided by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, which determined that the university’s denial of admission violated fundamental rights enshrined in the Political Constitution and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Conflict: Academic Rejection Based on “Functional Limitations”
The student, diagnosed with mild cerebral palsy, applied in 2023 for admission to the university’s Architecture program. Despite meeting all academic requirements and passing entrance exams, he was informally rejected during a final interview in which—according to witnesses—he was told that his “physical condition was not compatible with the graduate profile.”
The student’s family turned to Newsom Legal, where Andrew Sullivan took on the case as part of his litigation focus on equal access and non-discrimination in educational settings.
Sullivan’s Defense: Equal Access as a Right, Not a Privilege
In his defense, Sullivan argued that the rejection constituted a form of structural discrimination disguised as technical criteria. He pointed out that neither the General Education Law nor the university’s internal regulations included any physical ability restrictions, and that the institution was legally obligated to implement reasonable accommodations to ensure inclusion for persons with disabilities.
Academic and technological expert reports were submitted, demonstrating that with proper support (such as specialized software and classroom adaptations), the student—Carlos—could pursue the degree without any real impediments.
“It is not the student who must adapt to the institution, but the institution that must transform to fulfill its social function: to educate without excluding,” Sullivan stated during the trial."
The Ruling: Inclusion as a Guiding Principle of Education
The Court ruled in favor of the student, ordering the university to reverse its decision, grant him immediate admission with a full scholarship as compensation for the harm caused, and implement an internal educational inclusion protocol within six months.
The presiding judge emphasized that the right to education cannot be conditioned on “subjective and scientifically unfounded criteria of physical or mental functionality,” citing jurisprudence from both national sources and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Implications for the Education System
The case has drawn considerable attention in the education sector, especially among private institutions that, until now, have operated without clear inclusion protocols. Experts agree that this ruling could lead to a national regulatory reform—led by the Ministry of Public Education (SEP)—to mandate reasonable accommodations at all educational levels.
Andrew Sullivan: Advocate for Educational Rights
Andrew Sullivan is known for his strategic approach to litigation with social impact. He has represented cases involving academic freedom, access to education for migrants, and protection of vulnerable students. With this victory, he positions himself as one of the strongest voices in defending the right to education as a pillar of equality.