Special Education: Supreme Court Says No to Pay for Experts
by V. Wayne Young, Executive Director
In its second landmark ruling on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) during its current term, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that school districts are not required to reimburse parents for payments to expert witnesses in special education disputes, even if the parents prevail in their claim.
In Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, the parents of a special education student had sued their local school district for reimbursement of private school tuition for their child. They prevailed in their suit, and were reimbursed for the tuition. They then sought more than $29,000 from the district in fees for an “educational consultant” they had employed to assist them in the lawsuit. The trial court awarded the fees, and the appellate court upheld the award. The school district then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Justice Alito, the newest member of the court, wrote the majority opinion. He wrote that the conditions placed upon states under IDEA must be set out “unambiguously,” and that states must “knowingly and voluntarily” accept these conditions as part of receiving IDEA funds. Alito noted that while IDEA clearly provides for the award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” in special education cases, there is “no hint that accepting IDEA funds will obligate a state to reimburse prevailing parents for services rendered by experts.” Other justices indicated that, had Congress intended to allow for expert fees, it had the opportunity to clearly state that intent in the law.
In an earlier special education ruling during its 2005-06 term, the Supreme Court held that parents bear the burden of proving their claim when challenging the adequacy of special education services provided by a school district. In that case, the parents had argued that school districts should bear the burden of justifying the value and appropriateness the services provided.
Both of these special education cases were decided in favor of the respective school districts. It may not yet constitute a pattern, but these two decisions indicate that the court, as currently composed, is likely to take a “strict constructionist” view of laws enacted by Congress; that is, it seems unwilling to “read into” the law what it perceives the intent of Congress to be, but instead to adhere to its clearly stated intent.
- 09/2006
|
