Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral argument in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy, Docket No. 05-18, a case involving whether parents are entitled to reimbursement for expert witness fees when they succeed in a legal claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While IDEA provides for the awarding of attorneys' fees to parents who successfully prosecute a claim under the law, the statute is silent regarding the awarding of expert fees. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled for the parents, finding that expert fees are implicitly covered. The lower courts are in dispute on this question. A ruling in favor of the parents would have a significant financial impact on local school districts. According to Francisco Negrón, general counsel for the National School Boards Association (NSBA), “The down-side for school districts is basically a loss of revenue, a loss of dollars that are there for student education.” He also points out that there is the potential for “self-styled experts that are out there to go after the perceived deep pockets of school districts.” In addition, local school district officials express concern about the impact unlicensed, unregulated advocates would have on a process that is meant to be collaborative, not adversarial. Mr. Negrón believes a ruling that allows the recovery of expert fees "flies in the face of what Congress intended [in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] — not that there be more litigation expense, but a more collaborative approach."
During the oral argument, Raymond Kuntz, attorney for the Arlington Central School District, asserted IDEA's meaning is plain that "[e]xpert fees are not part of attorney's fees.” Mr. Kuntz added, “If it [expert fees] was that important, it should have been there [in the statute].” However, Justice Stephen Breyer asked, “Is there a dictionary to say costs don't include that?” David Vladeck, the attorney representing the parents, argued that the legislative history surrounding the enactment of IDEA supports the conclusion that Congress clearly intended the term “attorneys’ fees” to include “reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses.” When Justice Samuel Alito asked if recoverable costs would include parents' lost wages or travel expenses, Mr. Vladeck responded that only costs incurred in connection with a legal proceeding would be covered. When Mr. Vladeck contended that fees for experts are exceedingly modest, both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia responded there has to be statutory authorization to pay the fees, regardless of their amount. The U.S. Department of Education, represented by the Office of Solicitor General (SG), also argued in support of the school district. Assistant SG David Salmons contended that Congress was concerned about the amount of litigation for school districts and decided not to legislate on expert fees. He also pointed out that while IDEA requires parents to be notified they can recover attorneys' fees, it is silent on the subject of expert fees. The Court is expected to render a decision in this case by the end of the current term in July of this year.
Poughkeepsie Journal
By Erikah Haavie
[Full story]
Poughkeepsie Journal
By John Ferro
[Full story]
[Editor’s Note: Links to the amicus brief filed by NSBA in the case and to past news items and a summary of the Second Circuit decision are available starting at the link below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Arlington Central Sch. Dist. v. Murphy]