Forest Grove School District v. T.A. | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued April 28, 2009 Decided June 22, 2009 | |
Full case name | Forest Grove School District v. T.A. |
Docket no. | 08-305 |
Citations | 557 U.S. 230 ( more ) 129 S. Ct. 2484; 174 L. Ed. 2d 168; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4645 |
Case history | |
Prior | 640 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (D. Or. 2005); reversed, 523 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2008); cert. granted, 555 U.S. 1130(2009). |
Subsequent | On remand, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Or. 2009); affirmed, 638 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2011); cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1185(2012). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stevens, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito |
Dissent | Souter, joined by Scalia, Thomas |
Laws applied | |
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 |
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. [1]
T.A. attended public school in the Forest Grove School District in Forest Grove, Oregon, from kindergarten through the winter term of his junior year in high school. In high school T.A. had difficulty with his schoolwork, but the school determined that T.A. did not qualify for special education services. In 2003 T.A. was diagnosed with ADHD and a number of learning disabilities. Subsequently, T.A. was enrolled in a private school that focused on special needs children. [1]
Justice Stevens held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act did not categorically bar reimbursement of private education tuition if a child had not previously received special education and related services through the school. [1] The court remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to determine if the family at issue was then entitled to reimbursement. [2]
Justice Souter filed a dissent joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. Justice Souter argued that School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985), was controlling and IDEA prohibits reimbursement if the school district has made a free appropriate public education available.
In December 2009, federal district court judge Michael W. Mosman determined the family was not eligible for reimbursement under the IDEA. [3] [2] The parents in the case had sent their son to Mount Bachelor Academy due to behavioral problems and the use of drugs. [2] Mosman ruled that the special reason for the special education, behavioral issues and drug use, were not disabilities covered under federal law, and the parents had not listed ADHD when applying to the academy. [2] The parents appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld Judge Mosman's ruling. [4]
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.
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.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the vouchers could be used for private religious schools.
Timothy Michael Tymkovich is a 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).
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. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in part, and in the judgment. Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer filed dissents.
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 3100 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.
Mount Bachelor Academy was an Oregon private co-educational therapeutic boarding school providing help to families of adolescents experiencing emotional and behavioral disorders including, minor Depressive Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Substance abuse, and ADHD as well as help for teenagers and families struggling with adoption issues. The typical student was between 14 and 18 years of age. The average length of stay was 14 to 16 months.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.
Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to determine whether Arizona's general education funding budget supports Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA)-compliant English Language Learner (ELL) programming.
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).
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. 154 (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).
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.
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.
Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) can proceed without exhausting the administrative procedures of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), because compensatory damages are not available under IDEA. This case holds significant implications for disabled students who allege they were failed by school officials.