The Supreme Court’s October Term

While parents and advocates often lean into the plain reading of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court are the guidepost for the interpretation of the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court can hear any case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.   From Brown v. the Board of Education to the Endrew F. case the Supreme Court has a lot of influence on special education cases nationwide and how the lower courts and hearing officers (and thus schools) interpret and follow the law.   Whether you live in Alabama or Alaska your state is required to follow the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is bound by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court's October 2022 term starts in just a week.   While there are many pending cases, the Court has an upcoming docket of several special education cases. 

A couple of those cases to watch include: 

Stay-Put:     Clarfeld v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii, 80 IDELR 210 (9th Cir. 2022, unpublished), petition for cert. filed (U.S. 06/07/22) (No. 21-8126). 

Alex Clarfeld (“Clarfeld”), the father of P.M., a Hawaii student whose Autism Spectrum Disorder qualifies for special education services, challenges the district court’s order affirming in part and reversing in part an Administrative Hearing Officer’s (“AHO”) decision.

This case involves the “Stay-Put” requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).    The lower court held that IDEA's "stay put" provision does not entitle Clarfeld to full reimbursement for the student’s private tuition from August to October 2019 because he had not yet filed a due process complaint.  The district court, acting within its discretion, had equitably remedied the DOE's denial of a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") at the start of the 2019-2020 school year by granting only partial reimbursement for P.M.'s private tuition during the period when there was no individualized education plan ("IEP") in place.

Stay-put is a part of IDEA that requires that students remain in the current educational placement pending the resolution of an educational dispute. Stay-put acts as an automatic injunction and does not require any party to take any action once an educational Due Process Complaint has been filed. 34 CFR 300.518 (a).

The U.S. Supreme Court has provided that “Stay-Put” is "unequivocal."  This means that your School cannot move your child from his or her current educational placement during a FAPE dispute unless a specific exception applies.  Honig v. Doe, 559 IDELR 231 (U.S. 1988).

It is very important for parents and advocates stay-put provision only applies when the parent files an IDEA due process complaint. See 34 CFR 300.518 (a) Informal complaints to your school or your state’s Department of Education will not trigger stay-put protections.   In some states, your state law may allow you to request mediation which may allow your child to maintain “stay-put” status but it is essential that you know and understand whether this is applicable in your state and the restrictions to it. 

Exhaustion:  Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 79 IDELR 1 (6th Cir. 2021), petition for cert. filed (U.S. 12/13/21) (No. 21-887).  This case focused on money damages which are typically not available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but which are available under other laws, including Section 504 and the ADA.    This case asks whether the “exhaustion requirement” under IDEA must occur prior to seeking money damages.   

Exhaustion is a requirement of the law under IDEA intended to focus the parties on the administrative process before seeking relief it Court.  It simply requires parties must exhaust their administrative remedies under the IDEA. 34 CFR 300.516 (e).   However, there are cases where the administrative system cannot properly address the harm.   For example, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 69 IDELR 116 (2017), that exhaustion is unnecessary where the essence of the plaintiff's suit is "something other than the denial of the IDEA's core guarantee of a FAPE.   Thus in cases involving a personal injury, tort claim, or wrongful death of a child the issue is something other than the denial of an educational issue.  However, this area can get murky when we look at ADA and Section 504 claims.  It can also be problematic in a case in which monetary damages are the only relief available.