{"id":2683,"date":"2017-04-02T19:52:59","date_gmt":"2017-04-03T00:52:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=2683"},"modified":"2017-11-20T20:23:30","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T01:23:30","slug":"supreme-court-heightens-expectations-for-special-education-hints-about-neil-gorsuch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2017\/04\/02\/supreme-court-heightens-expectations-for-special-education-hints-about-neil-gorsuch\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Heightens Expectations for Special Education, Hints About Neil Gorsuch"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Photo courtesy of Pixabay<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

By Susan Pickup, Staff Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the 8-0 decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District<\/em>, the U.S. Supreme Court held in favor of a student with autism and attention deficit disorder (ADD), a small victory for students with disabilities everywhere.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The issue dealt with the federal Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).[2]<\/sup><\/a> IDEA grants states federal funding toward special education as long as the state complies with certain requirements.[3]<\/sup><\/a> The state must provide \u201cfree appropriate public education\u201d to all students with disabilities, known as the FAPE standard.[4]<\/sup><\/a> IDEA requires that those students with disabilities have an individualized education plan (IEP) created by the student\u2019s teachers in order to calculate the student\u2019s needs and progress throughout school.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Petitioner in this case was a special needs student who was placed in a special education program in a Colorado public school.[6]<\/sup><\/a> The Petitioner\u2019s family, however, transferred him to a private school in fifth grade because they believed the public school did not provide an adequate education and IEP for their son under IDEA.[7]<\/sup><\/a> Soon after, the Petitioner\u2019s family requested that the school district reimburse them for the tuition of the private school.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The lower courts held in favor of the school district.[9]<\/sup><\/a> The district court found that despite that the Petitioner \u201cdid not reveal immense educational growth,\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a> it was \u201csufficient to show a pattern of, at the least, minimal progress.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a> The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed.[12]<\/sup><\/a> The court used precedent from the 1982 Rowley <\/em>case. It held that Petitioner had a sufficient education under IDEA as long as the IEP was calculated to confer an \u201ceducational benefit\u201d that is \u201cmerely . . . more than\u00a0de minimis<\/em>.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a> The latter phrase was the court\u2019s addition.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Its reasoning was that a school must offer an individual education plan \u201creasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a> Chief Justice Roberts, contradicting the Tenth Circuit, stated \u201c[i]t cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than\u00a0de minimis<\/em>\u00a0progress for children who are not.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/a> The Court further stated \u201cwhen all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing \u201cmerely more than\u00a0de minimis<\/em>\u201d progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Interestingly, the decision was decided during the confirmation hearings of potential Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is from the Tenth Circuit.[17]<\/sup><\/a> As the Supreme Court just vacated his court\u2019s opinion, it was bound to be brought up during questioning.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

When asked about it during his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch said, \u201cI was wrong, Senator, because I was bound by circuit precedent, and I\u2019m sorry.\u201d[19]<\/sup><\/a> When asked as to why his opinion added the language \u201cmerely more than\u00a0de minimis<\/em>\u201d to the IDEA standard, Gorsuch said that \u201cto suggest that [he has] some animus against children, Senator, would be mistaken.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cWe have to look to your words to look into your heart,\u201d said Sen. Dick Durbin in response, \u201cand when I look at the word \u2018merely,\u2019 it scares me.\u201d[21]<\/sup><\/a> As of this writing, how Gorsuch\u2019s responses will ultimately influence his confirmation vote is yet to be seen.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Endrew<\/em> F v. Douglas Conuty Sch. Dist.<\/em>, No. 15\u2013827., 2017 WL 1066260 (2017).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *4.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *7.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *8.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Endrew<\/em> F v. Douglas Conuty Sch. Dist.<\/em>, \u00a0No. 12\u2013cv\u20132620\u2013LTB, 2014 WL 4548439, at *9<\/a> (D. Colo. 2014).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Endrew supra<\/em> note 1, at *8.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *8.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *10.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *11.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at *12.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> NPR, Supreme Court Rules in Favor of A Special Education Student<\/em>, http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/ed\/2017\/03\/22\/521094752\/the-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-a-special-education-student<\/a> (last visited March 23, 2017).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Endrew supra<\/em> note 10.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a>Washington Post, Supreme Court sets higher bar for education of students with disabilitieshttps:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/courts_law\/supreme-court-sets-higher-bar-for-education-of-students-with-disabilities\/2017\/03\/22\/fcb7bc62-0f16-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.0b2b7d5883a4<\/a>. (last visited March 23, 2017).<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Neil Gorsuch confirmation Hearing on March 22, 2017 (CSPAN).<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  By Susan Pickup, Staff Writer In the 8-0 decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the U.S. Supreme Court held in favor of a student with autism and attention deficit disorder (ADD), a small victory for students with disabilities everywhere.[1] The issue dealt with the federal Individual with [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[1713,1363,1358,1704,1705,1356,1709,1710,1712,702,1354,1365,1715,1707,1361,1368,1714,1716,1708,1706,1247,557,1711,112,709,641],"class_list":["post-2683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts","tag-add","tag-attention-deficit-disorder","tag-autism","tag-confirmation","tag-confirmation-vote","tag-disabilities","tag-disability","tag-disabled","tag-disabled-student","tag-donald-trump","tag-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-district","tag-fape","tag-free-appropriate-public-education","tag-gorsuch","tag-idea","tag-iep","tag-individual-with-disabilities-education-act","tag-individualized-education-plan","tag-judge-neil-gorsuch","tag-neil-gorsuch","tag-president-donald-trump","tag-scotus","tag-student-disability","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2683","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2683"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2683\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2686,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2683\/revisions\/2686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}