Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Schaffer v. Weast
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in
Schaffer v. Weast, a special education case over who should have the burden of proving the adequacy of individualized education programs (IEPs) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when parents challenge a school district's IEP in an administrative hearing. IDEA is silent on this point, and eight federal appeals courts have issued conflicting interpretations. In
Schaffer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said that IDEA should be read to incorporate what it said was a traditional legal rule that "a party initiating the proceeding" should have to prove its case. The legal battle has shown how critical the burden of proof is in such disputes. Initially, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the facts were evenly balanced but ruled for Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) because the parents "bear the burden of persuasion." The parents appealed in federal court, which sent the case back to the ALJ with instructions to reconsider the case with the burden on the school district. The ALJ reversed his ruling. On a later appeal the Fourth Circuit placed the burden back on the parents, who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a brief supporting MCPS, the National School Boards Association cited a study that put the nationwide cost of mediating and litigating special education claims at $147 million for the 1999-2000 school year. Questions and comments from the justices strongly implied that most of the Court agrees with MCPS that the burden of proof in IEP disputes should be placed on those trying to show that school officials' plans are flawed. Justice Stephen G. Breyer told the parents' attorney, William H. Hurd, that he had "never seen a case" that "didn't start out with the idea that the person challenging" must prove his case. Mr. Hurd responded that the traditional burden of proof rule should not apply because the Congress's intent when it enacted IDEA was to create a collaborative rather than adversarial atmosphere, in which parents and school districts would develop a workable IEP. Several justices voiced concern that the Schaffers' interpretation of where the burden should be placed would be financially damaging to school systems. "No statute pursues its purposes at all costs," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "This is not play money." U.S. Assistant Solicitor General David B. Salmons, representing the federal government, reinforced the district's concerns, telling the Court that Congress had revised IDEA recently to deal with an "explosion of litigation." There appeared to be some sentiment on the court for a ruling that would permit the states to place the burden on either side—an option neither Mr. Salmons nor the schools' attorney, Gregory G. Garre, would rule out. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked, "Why shouldn't we have a unified federal rule if this is a federal program?" Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case. He gave no reason, but his former law firm, Hogan & Hartson, is representing MCPS.
Washington PostBy Charles Lane and Lori Aratani
[Link to full story]Washington PostBy Charles Lane
[Link to full story]San Jose Mercury-NewsBy Peter Yost (AP)
[Link to full story][
Editor's Note: For background, including NSBA's amicus
briefs to the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court in the case, see the past Legal Clips
items now posted on NSBA's School Law pages. For additional commentary, see the BoardBuzz posting. The discussion of state discretion for adopting their own rules for implementing certain provisions of IDEA highlights a peril for schools that is not confined to court rulings: some of the recently enacted legislative changes to IDEA can be undercut by state decisions to preserve aspects of the previous iteration of IDEA that Congress sought to reform.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Schaffer v. Weast]
[BoardBuzz on oral arguments]