Endrew F. v. Douglas CNTY. SCH. Dist. Re-1
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 22, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- March 22, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Roberts
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. Thirty-five years ago, this Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act establishes a substantive right to a "free appropriate public education" for certain children with disabilities. Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). We declined, however, to endorse any one standard for determining "when handicapped children are receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy the requirements of the Act." Id., at 202, 102 S.Ct. 3034. That "more difficult problem" is before us today. Ibid. I A The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act) offers States federal funds to assist in educating children with disabilities. 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ; see Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 295, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006). In exchange for the funds, a State pledges to comply with a number of statutory conditions. Among them, the State must provide a free appropriate public education-a FAPE, for short-to all eligible children. § 1412(a)(1). A FAPE, as the Act defines it, includes both "special education" and "related services." § 1401(9). "Special education" is "specially designed instruction ... to meet the unique needs of a child with…
Excerpt of a 30,124-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.