In the 2005 case Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl Murphy et vir, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over who should bear the costs for expert fees in lawsuits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Murphys sought reimbursement from their school district for private educational services for their son, who has multiple disabilities. They won at every level and were awarded tuition reimbursement as well as attorney's fees but disagreed about whether they could also be reimbursed for expert witness fees. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that parents who successfully sue schools under IDEA cannot recover expert witness costs because such expenses are not included in "costs" mentioned by IDEA legislation which only explicitly allows recovery of attorney’s fees.

In the dissenting opinion for Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl Murphy et Vir, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow courts to award expert fees as costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was a departure from traditional American jurisprudence where each party bears its own litigation expenses. He contended that Congress did not explicitly include expert fees in IDEA’s fee-shifting provision and thus they should not be awarded. Furthermore, he suggested that this ruling could potentially deter school districts from challenging unreasonable demands due to fear of high litigation costs, which would ultimately harm students by diverting resources away from education towards legal battles.