Landmark Supreme Court Cases
8 cases that shaped special education law — study facts, holdings, and how each applies to your advocacy practice.
Facts
Amy Rowley was a deaf student with strong lip-reading skills who was performing above average without a sign language interpreter. Her parents requested a full-time interpreter in all academic classes. The school denied the request, arguing she was doing well without one.
Holding
The Supreme Court established a two-part test for FAPE: (1) the IEP must be developed in compliance with IDEA's procedural requirements, and (2) the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit. The Court held that schools are not required to maximize a child's potential or provide the best possible education — just an appropriate one.
Advocacy Takeaway
Rowley set a floor, not a ceiling. In 2017, Endrew F. v. Douglas County raised the bar — schools must now offer more than a minimal educational benefit; the IEP must be 'reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.' Advocates should document whether progress is meaningful and challenge IEPs that only aim for minimal gains.
Key phrase to remember
"Reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit — not maximize potential"
Facts
Amber Tatro had spina bifida and required clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) every three to four hours to remain at school. The district refused to provide CIC, classifying it as a 'medical service' excluded from IDEA.
Holding
CIC is a related service — not a medical service — because it can be performed by a trained layperson (not a physician) and is necessary for the student to benefit from special education. IDEA's medical services exclusion only applies to services that must be performed by a physician.
Advocacy Takeaway
If a school refuses to provide a health-related service (tube feeding, catheterization, suctioning, medication administration), the key question is: does it require a physician? If a school nurse or trained aide can do it, and it's needed for the child to attend school, it's a required related service. Cost is not a valid reason to refuse.
Key phrase to remember
"Non-physician services necessary for school attendance are related services IDEA must cover"
Facts
The Burlingtons disagreed with the public school's IEP for their son Michael and unilaterally enrolled him in a state-approved private school. They argued the public IEP failed to provide FAPE and sought reimbursement for tuition and related costs.
Holding
Courts may order school districts to reimburse parents for the cost of a unilateral private placement when (1) the public school's IEP failed to provide FAPE, and (2) the private placement was appropriate. IDEA's 'stay put' provision does not prevent parents from seeking reimbursement when the public placement is found inadequate.
Advocacy Takeaway
Before placing a child unilaterally in a private school, send the school district a written notice explaining why the IEP fails to provide FAPE and that you intend to seek reimbursement. Document everything. The family assumes financial risk until a court or hearing officer rules in their favor — but Burlington confirms they can recover those costs if they prevail.
Key phrase to remember
"Parents who unilaterally place due to FAPE failure may recover tuition if placement was appropriate"
Facts
Two emotionally disturbed students in San Francisco were indefinitely suspended after violent incidents at school. The district argued it had the authority to exclude dangerous students from school without following IDEA's procedural requirements.
Holding
Schools may not unilaterally exclude a student with a disability for more than 10 school days if the behavior was related to the disability. The 'stay put' provision requires the student to remain in their current educational placement during any dispute. If a student is genuinely dangerous, the school must go to court to obtain an injunction — it cannot act unilaterally.
Advocacy Takeaway
If a school tries to suspend a student with a disability for more than 10 consecutive days (or through a pattern of shorter suspensions), trigger a Manifestation Determination Review. If the behavior is related to the disability or the school's failure to implement the IEP, the school cannot expel without changing placement through the proper IEP process. The school's emergency option is a court order — not unilateral action.
Key phrase to remember
"No unilateral exclusion beyond 10 days — stay put applies; schools need a court order for dangerous students"
Facts
Shannon Carter's parents placed her in a private school that was not on the state's approved list after the public school's IEP was found to be inadequate. The district argued reimbursement was unavailable because the private school lacked state approval.
Holding
Parents may receive tuition reimbursement even if the private school is not state-approved, as long as (1) the public school failed to provide FAPE and (2) the private placement provided an appropriate education. Courts will not penalize parents for a school's failures by imposing a state-approval requirement that Congress did not include in IDEA.
Advocacy Takeaway
Carter expanded Burlington. When a public school fails to provide FAPE and parents find a private school that actually works for their child — even if it's not on the state's approved list — they can still win reimbursement. The private school just needs to provide appropriate education. This matters a lot for families in rural Colorado where approved options are limited.
Key phrase to remember
"Tuition reimbursement available even for non-state-approved placements when the public IEP failed FAPE"
Facts
Garret F. was ventilator-dependent after a spinal cord injury at age four. He required continuous one-on-one nursing care throughout the school day. The district refused, arguing the continuous nursing requirement made it a 'medical service' excluded from IDEA — and that it was too expensive.
Holding
The school must provide continuous nursing services because they do not require a physician to perform. The physician/non-physician bright line from Tatro controls: if a physician is not required, it is a related service the district must fund. Cost is explicitly not a factor in this determination.
Advocacy Takeaway
This case closed the cost loophole that districts tried to use after Tatro. Schools cannot refuse required health services by pointing to the expense. When a district argues a service is too costly, cite Garret F.: cost is irrelevant to whether a service is a related service under IDEA. This applies to nursing, aide support, and other medically complex needs.
Key phrase to remember
"Cost is irrelevant — if a physician is not required, the school must provide the health service"
Facts
The Schaffer family challenged their son Brian's IEP in a due process hearing. Both sides disputed who bore the burden of proof — the parents challenging the IEP, or the school district defending it.
Holding
In IDEA due process hearings, the burden of proof falls on the party seeking relief — typically the parents. The Court declined to create a rule placing the burden on school districts, though it noted that states may shift the burden by statute.
Advocacy Takeaway
In most states (including Colorado, absent a state law shift), parents must prove the IEP is inappropriate — the school does not have to prove it is appropriate. This makes documentation critical before entering due process: gather progress data showing inadequate growth, independent evaluation results, teacher statements, emails where the school acknowledged problems, and records of unimplemented services. Build your case before filing.
Key phrase to remember
"Parents typically bear the burden of proving the IEP is inappropriate — document everything before due process"
Facts
The Murphy family prevailed in a due process hearing and sought reimbursement for their expert witness fees as part of their attorney fee award under IDEA. The district argued IDEA's fee-shifting provision only covered attorney fees, not expert costs.
Holding
IDEA does not authorize courts to award expert witness fees to prevailing parents. The statute's authorization of 'reasonable attorneys' fees' does not encompass the fees of educational consultants or expert witnesses. Congress did not clearly authorize expert fee recovery.
Advocacy Takeaway
Budget separately for expert witnesses — independent evaluators, special education consultants, and expert witnesses are out-of-pocket costs even if you win. Attorney fees are recoverable when parents prevail, but not expert fees. This makes independent evaluations a financial commitment that parents must plan for regardless of outcome. Some advocates offset this by seeking an IEE at public expense early in the dispute.
Key phrase to remember
"Expert witness fees are NOT recoverable under IDEA — even if parents prevail at due process"