Special Education

Parents May Not Recover Expert Fees Under IDEA, Supreme Court Rules

By Mark Walsh — June 26, 2006 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The main federal special education law does not authorize parents who prevail in a dispute over their child’s individualized education program to recover expert fees, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled today.

The court held 6-3 that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not authorize courts to make school districts reimburse parents for the fees of experts, such as consultants, even when the parents prevail in disputes.

The court said Congress, in its original passage and subsequent reauthorizations of the special education law, did not “unambiguously” alert the states that when they accepted federal money under the statute, they were obligated to provide compensation for expert fees to parents who win such disputes.

“The terms of the IDEA overwhelmingly support the conclusion that prevailing parents may not recover the costs of experts or consultants,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority on June 26 in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (Case No. 05-18).

His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed her own opinion, concurring with Justice Alito’s opinion in part and concurring in the outcome of the case.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter, said the legislative history of the IDEA indicates that Congress intended for expert fees to be recoverable, and that such an interpretation furthers the purposes of the special education law.

“The practical significance of the act’s participatory rights and procedural protections may be seriously diminished if parents are unable to obtain reimbursement for the costs of their experts,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Spec. Ed. Parents Lose Again

The decision was the second on a special education issue in this Supreme Court term, and it was the second time that parents lost.

In November, the court ruled 6-2 in Schaffer v. Weast that whichever party brings a challenge to an individualized education program, or IEP, under the federal law is the one that must prove its case. Since most challenges to IEPs come from parents, the burden of proof would most often be on them.

In the Arlington Central case, Pearl and Theodore Murphy, whose son has multiple disabilities, won their original suit against the 10,000-student Arlington Central district, in upstate New York, and asked a U.S. District Court judge in New York City to award them $29,350 in expert fees for the services of an educational consultant, Marilyn Arons. The judge concluded that the parents were entitled to recover part of that sum, or $8,650.

The school district appealed the fee award and lost last year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, also in New York City. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case, with the school district arguing in part that federal appeals courts have taken several different tacks in interpreting a provision of the IDEA that authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a special education dispute.

Ms. Arons, though not technically a party to the case, was at the center of it because she has long been an advocate for parents of children in special education, and she has been involved in several legal matters addressing whether nonlawyer experts and consultants such as her can ultimately recover their fees from districts. (“Advocacy for Parents Key to IDEA Case,” April 12, 2006.)

Justice Breyer, in his dissent, noted a potential imbalance when districts and parents battle over a child’s special education program.

“The costs of experts may not make much of a dent in a school district’s budget, as many of the experts they use in IDEA proceedings are already on the staff,” he said. “But to parents, the award of costs may matter enormously. Without potential reimbursement, parents may well lack the services of experts entirely.”

‘Decimating to Parents’

Maura A. Collinsgru, the director of the Parent Information Center of New Jersey, a Teaneck, N.J.-based advocacy organization for parents of children with disabilities founded by Ms. Arons, said the court’s ruling was “decimating to parents.”

“This decision renders IDEA meaningless for those who have no resources,” she said.

Ms. Collinsgru referred to Justice Alito’s conclusion that the spending clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution required Congress to give the states clear notice of an obligation under the IDEA, such as reimbursing parents for the use of experts. “The majority speaks about our disabled children as though they are commodities under the spending clause,” she said. “It was very insulting to parents and those who work with them.”

Drew S. Days III, a Washington lawyer who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the parents’ side for the National Disability Rights Network and the Center for Law and Education, said the text and the legislative history of the IDEA suggest that Congress wanted parents to be able to win reimbursement for experts.

“The fact they will not be able to hire educational consultants with the expectation that even if they are successful they could be reimbursed, will substantially limit the degree to which parents can represent their interests effectively,” Mr. Days, who was a U.S. solicitor general under President Clinton, said in an interview.

But Thomas Hutton, a staff lawyer for the Alexandria, Va.-based National School Boards Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the Arlington Central school district, said the ruling represented the judicial branch being “willing to give the schools the benefit of the doubt on dealing with children in special education.”

“We don’t view this as a victory for school districts over parents,” Mr. Hutton said. “It is a victory for the collaborative approach over the litigation approach.”

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Classroom Technology Webinar
Academic Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
As AI writing tools rapidly evolve, learn how to set standards and expectations for your students on their use.
Content provided by Turnitin
Recruitment & Retention Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: Chronic Teacher Shortage: Where Do We Go From Here?  
Join Peter DeWitt, Michael Fullan, and guests for expert insights into finding solutions for the teacher shortage.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
The Science of Reading: Tools to Build Reading Proficiency
The Science of Reading has taken education by storm. Learn how Dr. Miranda Blount transformed literacy instruction in her state.
Content provided by hand2mind

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Special Education Q&A This Teacher Helps Students With Disabilities Find Agency Through Communication
An award-winning special education teacher shares insights on pandemic recovery and building agency for students with disabilities.
5 min read
Blue silhouettes of two faces look  toward each other with a speech bubble and a thought bubble between them to represent communication.
DigitalVision Vectors
Special Education Supreme Court Seems in Favor of Deaf Student's Right to Sue School District Under the ADA
Miguel Luna Perez was there as the justices weighed issues in his case over his district allegedly failing to provide trained interpreters.
7 min read
Miguel Perez stands outside the Supreme Court after arguments in the case of Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools on Jan. 18, 2023 in Washington, D.C.
Miguel Perez, right, along with lawyer Roman Martinez, stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday after arguments in his case against his former school district in Sturgis, Mich.
Mark Walsh/Education Week
Special Education A Deaf Student Says His School District Failed Him. The Supreme Court Will Decide
Miguel Luna Perez received inadequate assistance for 12 years, his suit says. The high court will decide if he can pursue money damages.
10 min read
Miguel Perez
Miguel Luna Perez in a 2016 yearbook photo as a senior at Sturgis High School in Michigan. Luna Perez, who is deaf, went on to the Michigan School for the Deaf in a settlement with his district but is seeking to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for the district's alleged failures to provide him adequate assistance to communicate.
Photo courtesy of Luna Perez family
Special Education 'Better Defined by Their Strengths': 5 Ways to Support Students With Learning Differences
What are effective ways schools can support students with learning differences? Educators on social media weighed in.
3 min read
A diverse group of students wearing book bags and climbing ladders and books to assemble a large puzzle
iStock/Getty Images Plus