| Case |
Issue(s) Considered by
the Court |
Board
of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley,
et al.
458 U.S. 176 (1982) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief arguing: (1) that an individualized education
program devised for a particular child with a disability does
not satisfy the requirements of the EHA [Education for All Handicapped
Children Act] solely because it is consistent with the relevant
state plan submitted to the Secretary of Education; (2) that the
district court properly determined that sign language interpreter
services should be provided to the child under the EHA, and (3)
that the district court properly granted injunctive relief extending
beyond the school year covered by the individualized education
program for which respondent sought judicial review. |
| Cedar
Rapids v. Garrett F., 119 S.Ct. 992 (1999) |
The United States filed
a brief on the issue of what qualifies as related services under
IDEA. The United States argued that the "related services" IDEA
requires schools to provide to students with disabilities include
medical services, as long as the service is not one usually administered
by a physician. |
| Lora
v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 623 F. 2d 240
(2nd Cir. 1980) |
This case involved
the issue of whether plaintiffs claiming a violation of the EHA
were required to exhaust state administrative remedies before
they could assert a private right of action in federal court. |
S-1 v.
Turlington, 635 F.2d 342 (5th Cir.),
cert denied, 454 U.S. 1030 (1981) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief supporting the district court's holding that IQ
tests used for BMR placement had not been validated as required
by the EHA, assuring that EHA funds were administered in a manner
consistent with the terms of the Act. |
| Larry
P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief supporting the district court's holding that IQ
tests used for BMR placement had not been validated as required
by the EHA, assuring that EHA funds were administered in a manner
consistent with the terms of the Act. |
| Commonwealth
of Massachusetts v. Secretary of HHS, 816 F.2d 796 (1st Cir.
1987) |
This case involved
Tucker Act jurisdiction and its effect on district court and appellate
jurisdiction. It also raised the question whether the Secretary's
interpretation of the scope of Medicaid coverage to exclude special
education and related services to be provided under federal Education
for All Handicapped Children Act and state education laws was
reasonable and therefore should have been upheld. |
| Georgia
Association of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 716 F.2d 1565
(11th Cir. 1983), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 468 U.S.
1213 (1984), decision on remand, 740 F. 2d 902 (11th Cir. 1984) |
The United States argued
that a school district violated the EHA by limiting all educational
programs for children with disabilities to 180 days, and that
children with severe disabilities might need summer programs. |
| Timothy
W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, Sch. Dist., 875 F.2d 954 (1st
Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 983 (1989) |
The United States argued
that a school district court may not refuse to provide a child
with a serious disability a free appropriate public education
based on its determination that the child would not benefit from
the educational services. |
| Sacramento
City Unified School District v. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th
Cir.), cert denied, 512 U.S. 1207 (1994) |
The United States argued
that, for a moderately retarded elementary school child, the least
restrictive environment is a full-time placement in a regular
class, with some modification to the curriculum and with the assistance
of a part-time aide. |
Virginia
Dept. of Education v. Riley
23 F. 3d 80 (4th Cir. 1994) (No. 94-1411), and 86 F.3d 1337 (4th
Cir. 1996) (No. 95-2627), vacated on rehearing en banc, 106 F.
3d 559 (1997) |
The Justice Department
defended the Department of Education's interpretation of the IDEA
as requiring that participating states continue to provide educational
services to children with disabilities during expulsion or long-term
suspension for misconduct unrelated to their disabilities, and
its decision to withhold funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia
for refusal to provide such services. In No. 94-1411, DOJ argued
that IDEA's notice and hearing requirements were inapplicable
because Virginia did not have an approved state plan under the
Act. In No. 95-2627, DOJ argued that the post-hearing decision
to withhold IDEA funding from Virginia for noncompliance was both
appropriate and mandated by the Act. |
| Doe.
v. Oak Park, 115 F.3d 1273 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.
Ct. 564 (1997) |
The United States filed
a brief arguing that children with disabilities who are expelled
from school must nonetheless be afforded education services. |
K.R.
v. Anderson Community Sch. Corp.
81 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1996), vacated, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997), on
remand, 125 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
1360 (1998) |
The United States argued
that the 1997 amendments to IDEA establish that public schools
do not have to provide to students in private schools publicly
supported special education services comparable to those provided
public school students. |
Fowler
v. Unified School District,
No 259, 128, F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1997) |
The United States argued
in its amicus brief that where parents voluntarily place their
child in a private school despite being offered an appropriate
educational placement in the public school, the local school district
is not obligated under federal law to provide any state-supported
services to the child. The district must pay only a share of federal
funds. |
| Marie
O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 1997) |
The United States filed
a brief (that was cited in the court of appeals opinion) arguing
that IDEA required school systems to provide services for children
below the age of three. |
| Hartmann
v. Loudoun County, 118 F.3d 966 (4th Cir. 1997), cert.denied,
118 S. Ct. 688 (1998) |
The United States filed
a brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of a district court holding
that a child with a disability should be educated in a regular
classroom. The United States emphasized IDEA's provision that
children should be educated in the least restrictive alternative
available. |
Bradley
v. Arkansas Dept. of Education,
(8th Cir. No. 98-1010) |
The United States intervened
and filed a brief defending the constitutionality of IDEA. |
| Jim C.
v. Arkansas, (8th Cir. No. 98-1830)
K.L. v. Valdez, (10th Cir.
No. 96-2278)
Mauney
v. Arkansas, (8th Cir. No. 98-1721) |
In all three
cases, the United States filed briefs arguing that Congress abrogated
sovereign immunity when passing IDEA, and so IDEA could be applied
to the states. |
Board.
of Ed. of Lagrange Sch. Dist. No. 105 v. Illinois Bd. Of Ed.
(7th Circuit, No. 98-4077) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief supporting placement of a pre-schooler in a classroom
with nondisabled students and requiring the school district to
pay for this private placement. |
| Honig
v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) |
The United States filed
a brief arguing that the district court abused its discretion
in enjoining the school district from indefinitely suspending
a student with an emotional disability for dangerous or disruptive
conduct growing out of his disability, pending completion of expulsion
proceedings. |
| Tribble
v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 798 F. Supp. 668
(M.D. Ala. 1992), appeal dismissed (11th Cir. 1993) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief arguing that IDEA does not require the school
district to provide a child with a disability who is voluntarily
enrolled by his parents in a private school with such "related
services" as physical, speech, and occupational therapy, and the
transportation necessary to secure such services, where the school
district stands ready to provide the child with a free appropriate
public education in a public school setting. |
| Metropolitan
School District of Wayne Township v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485
(7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 949 (1993) |
The United States took
the position that IDEA requires participating states to continue
providing educational services to children with disabilities during
periods of expulsion or long-term suspension for misconduct unrelated
to their disabilities. |
Zobrest
v. Catalina Foothills School District
509 U.S. 1 (1993) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief arguing that the Establishment Clause does not
preclude a school district from using IDEA funds to provide a
hearing-impaired child voluntarily enrolled in a sectarian school
with a sign language interpreter. |
Florence
County School District v. Carter
510 U.S. 7 (1993) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief arguing that a school district that has failed
to provide a free appropriate public education under the IDEA
may be ordered to reimburse parents who unilaterally withdrew
their child from public school, put the child in a private school,
and did not satisfy the Act's procedural requirements, but met
the child's educational needs. |
| Cefalu
v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 117 F. 3d 231 (5th
Cir., 1997) |
The United States filed
an amicus brief on petition for rehearing, taking the position
that the IDEA imposed no obligation on the school district to
provide a hearing-impaired student with an on-site sign language
interpreter at a private parochial school in which he was voluntarily
enrolled by his parents, so long as a free appropriate public
education had been made available to the student. |
