Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

Last updated
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 19, 2006
Decided June 26, 2006
Full case nameArlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl Murphy, et vir
Docket no. 05-18
Citations548 U.S. 291 ( more )
126 S. Ct. 2455; 165 L. Ed. 2d 526; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5162
Case history
PriorMurphy v. Arlington Central School District Board of Education, 402 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 546 U.S. 1085(2006).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceGinsburg
DissentSouter
DissentBreyer, joined by Stevens, Souter
Laws applied
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case about experts' fees in cases commenced under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that IDEA does not authorize the payment of the experts' fees of the prevailing parents. [1] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in part, and in the judgment. Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer filed dissents.

Contents

Background

The respondents, Pearl and Theodore Murphy of LaGrange, New York, sued the petitioner, Arlington Central School District, seeking to require them to pay for their child's private school tuition under IDEA. [2] The Murphys were successful, and the decision in their favor was upheld on appeal. The Murphys and their attorney, David Vladeck, then sued to require that the School District pay for the experts' fees incurred in the course of the trial. [2]

The District Court held that part of the fees were covered under the law, and required the School District to pay them. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but acknowledged that other Circuits had ruled differently. [3] The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the differences between the circuits.

Issue

IDEA allows a court to "award reasonable attorneys' fees as a part of the costs." The issue to be decided was whether this includes experts' fees.

Parties' arguments

The School District said that the plain language of the statute should govern, i.e. that "attorneys' fees" means only those fees paid for an attorney's services. The Murphys argued that the word "costs" is more important, and that the plain meaning of "costs" includes the cost of hiring an expert witness.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that the ability to award attorneys' fees does not include the ability to award experts' fees. "Costs," the Court wrote, is a term of art that generally does not include either type of fees. To add attorney's fees to costs is exceptional under American law, which is why it was written into the statute. That change of the court's power does not affect its power over experts' fees.

Furthermore, relying on previous cases, the Court said that without clear notice to the states, a statute cannot require that a certain fee shall be assessed against the state. [4] In response to the Murphys' contention that the legislative history suggests that experts' fees should be included, the Court stated that because the statute's actual wording is unambiguous, there is no need to consult outside sources. In addition, the fact that the Act authorized a GAO study of the effect of awarding costs does not change the actual wording of the Act, which does not so award them.

Concurrence

Justice Ginsburg concurred in part with the decision, and concurred in the judgment. She disagreed with the way the Court applied the "clear notice" requirement, but found the rest of the ruling to be correct.

Dissents

Breyer's dissent

Justice Breyer dissented from the Court's ruling, and was joined by Justices Stevens and Souter. Stating that the statute is not unambiguous, and relying on the legislative history, Breyer wrote that the term "costs" was intended by Congress to include the cost of hiring expert witnesses. He also wrote that the "Act's basic purpose" dictates that the award of all costs, including experts' fees, be allowed. He rejected the application of the "clear notice" rule.

Souter's dissent

Although he had also joined Justice Breyer's dissent, Justice Souter dissented separately to write that certain GAO studies authorized by IDEA give weight to Breyer's arguments and distinguish this case from those the majority cites.

Theoretical Distinction

The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, followed a textualist statutory interpretation. Textualist judges seek to locate "shared conventions" inherent within the statutory language, [5] often turning to textual "canons of construction" that "reflect broader conventions of language use." [6]

Subsequent developments

In 2009, Congressmen Chris Van Hollen and Pete Sessions introduced the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, to override Murphy and enable parents to recover their expert fees. [7] The bill was reintroduced in 2011 by Senator Tom Harkin, Chair, Senate Health Education and Labor Committee, and Congressman Chris Van Hollen and Congressman Peter Sessions. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Breyer</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1994 to 2022 (born 1938)

Stephen Gerald Breyer is an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton, and replaced retiring justice Harry Blackmun. Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, was his designated successor. Breyer was generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court. He is now the Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process at Harvard Law School.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2006 (born 1950)

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, he is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and the eleventh Catholic.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case about the procedures determining when prison litigation may be commenced in federal court. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that prisoners must exhaust all state-court remedies in accordance with the rules thereof before filing claims in federal court. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a concurrence. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2007 term, which began October 1, 2007 and concluded September 30, 2008.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on candidates' rights as provided by First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2008 term, which began on October 6, 2008 and concluded October 4, 2009.

The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act is an American legislative proposal first introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 14, 2007 as H.R.4188. The bill was most recently reintroduced on March 17, 2011 in the Senate as S.613 and in the House as H.R. 1208 The primary sponsors are Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chair of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, Congressmen Chris Van Hollen (D-CT), and Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX). The bill would enable parents of children with disabilities to recover their expert witness fees in due process hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court that struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) due to its being outside of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.

References

  1. Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006).
  2. 1 2 Poughkeepsie Journal [ permanent dead link ], June 27, 2006
  3. Murphy v. Arlington Central School District Board of Education, 402F.3d332 (2d Cir.2005).
  4. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987).
  5. Manning, John F. (April 2005). "Textualism and Legislative Intent". Virginia Law Review. 91 (2): 433. SSRN   2853690.
  6. Nelson, Caleb (April 2005). "What is Textualism?". Virginia Law Review. 91 (2): 383. SSRN   606424.
  7. IDEA Fairness Restoration Act HR 4188 , introduced June 2009.
  8. AnalysisIFRA Autism National Committee. Analysis, IDEA Fairness Restoration Act. Retrieved 18 April 2011.