Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter

Last updated
Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 6, 1993
Decided November 9, 1993
Full case nameFlorence County School District Four et al. v. Carter, a Minor, By and Through Her Father and Next Friend, Carter
Docket no. 91–1523
Citations510 U.S. 7 ( more )
114 S. Ct. 361; 126 L. Ed. 2d 284
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior950 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1991); cert. granted, 507 U.S. 907(1993).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinion
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, in certain circumstances, a court may order that parents be reimbursed for unilaterally withdrawing disabled children from schools that do not comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [1]

Contents

Background

Parents of a learning-disabled child alleged that the child's public school did not provide appropriate resources, and the parents sought reimbursement for costs they incurred for placing their child in a private school. [2] The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina found that public school's proposed individual education plan violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and that placement with private school was appropriate, and ordered reimbursement. [3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, [4] and United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split regarding reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [5]

Opinion of the Court

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the parents were entitled to reimbursement. [6] Justice O'Connor wrote that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [7] requires States to provide disabled children with a "free appropriate public education". [8] In cases where children are unable to receive an appropriate education in public schools, reimbursement may be available for when parents unilaterally place their children in private schools. [9] The Court also held that reimbursement is not barred because private school chosen by the parents did not meet IDEA's definition of free appropriate public education; [10] reimbursement is not barred because private school is not on state's approved list of private schools; [11] and courts may consider relevant factors in fashioning discretionary equitable relief, and total reimbursement is not appropriate if a court determines that cost of private education is unreasonable. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</span> United States law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

In the United States, federal mandates are orders that induce "responsibility, action, procedure or anything else that is imposed by constitutional, administrative, executive, or judicial action" for state and local governments and/or the private sector.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act USA law granting equal access to education for children with disabilities

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (sometimes referred to using the acronyms EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law 94-142 was enacted by the United States Congress in 1975. This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education and one free meal a day for children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were required to evaluate children with disabilities and create an educational plan with parent input that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experience of non-disabled students. The act was an amendment to Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act enacted in 1966.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timothy Tymkovich</span> American judge

Timothy Michael Tymkovich is the Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Harris L Hartz is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is an educational entitlement of all students in the United States who are identified as having a disability, guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Forest Grove School District (Oregon)

Forest Grove School District is a public school district in Washington County, Oregon, United States. It serves the communities of Cornelius, Dilley, Forest Grove and Gales Creek. David Parker is the superintendent of the district. The Forest Grove Elementary college District 15 was created in 1855 and later merged with several other districts including the Cornelius Elementary School District 2, with the larger district then later merged with the Forest Grove high school district (5). The Cornelius district was dissolved in 1960, with the western parts of the enrollment area going to the Forest Grove district and the eastern part going to the Hillsboro districts.

New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., 552 U.S. 1 (2007), is a legal case in the United States. The case involves the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and tuition reimbursement. The case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place October 1, 2007. The Court ruled in favor of Tom F. nine days later, on October 10, 2007, affirming the appellate court's decision with a 4–4 split. The decision did not list which justices voted which way, except that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy did not take part. Note that as a majority of justices failed to adopt an opinion in favor of either the school district or the student, the decision of the lower appellate court, permitting tuition reimbursement, remained unaltered.

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) is an independent national American association of parents of children with disabilities, attorneys, advocates, and related professionals who protect the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities and their families. COPAA has a 22-member Board of Directors who run the organization. Board members are selected to be representative of diversity of COPAA's peer-to-peer network and have significant experience in various aspects of COPAA's work. Currently COPAA has more than 2800 members in all states, the District of Columbia and several territories. Over 90% of all of its members, including professionals, are people with disabilities and/or parents and family members of people with disabilities. COPAA accomplishes its mission largely through the work of its network of volunteers, who are supported by the staff of the organization.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is American legislation that guarantees certain rights to people with disabilities. It was one of the first U.S. federal civil rights laws offering protection for people with disabilities. It set precedents for subsequent legislation for people with disabilities, including the Virginians with Disabilities Act in 1985 and the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Forest Grove School District v. T. A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement for private special education services when a public school fails to provide a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education services through the public school.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the related services provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" despite arguments from the school district concerning the costs of the services." The judges relied heavily on Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro. Under the Court's reading of the IDEA's relevant provisions, medical treatments such as suctioning, ventilator checks, catheterization, and others which can be administered by non-physician personnel come within the parameters of the special education law's related services. Disability advocates considered the Court decision to be a "substantial victory for families of children with disabilities." Amendments were made in the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 to increase IDEA funding as a result of the case.

This disability rights timeline lists events relating to the civil rights of people with disabilities in the United States of America, including court decisions, the passage of legislation, activists' actions, significant abuses of people with disabilities, and the founding of various organizations. Although the disability rights movement itself began in the 1960s, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities started much earlier and continues to the present.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Amy Rowley was a deaf student, whose school refused to provide a sign language interpreter. Her parents filed suit contending violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that public schools are not required by law to provide sign language interpreters to deaf students who are otherwise receiving an equal and adequate education.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The education policy of the United States is the set of objectives and acts of the federal government to support education in the United States. The federal government has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

References

  1. Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12-16 (1993).
  2. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 10.
  3. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 10-11.
  4. Carter v. Florence County School Dist. Four, 950F.2d156 ( 4th Cir. 1991).
  5. 507 U.S. 907 (1993)
  6. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 9-10, 16.
  7. 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).
  8. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 9-13 (citing § 1401(a)(18)).
  9. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 11-13.
  10. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 12-14.
  11. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 14-15.
  12. Florence County School Dist. Four, 510 U.S. at 15-16.