Adolescents with autism spectrum disorder often do not have access to crucial peer social activities. This study examines how typically developing adolescents evaluate decisions not to include a peer based on disability status, and the justifications they apply to these decisions. A clinical interview methodology was used to elicit judgments and justifications across four contexts. We found adolescents are more likely to judge the failure to include as acceptable in personal as compared to public contexts. Using logistic regression, we found that adolescents are more likely to provide moral justifications as to why failure to include is acceptable in a classroom as compared to home, lab group, and soccer practice contexts. Implications for intervention are also discussed.