| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

08-305 FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. T.A. DECISION BELOW: 523 F.3d 1078 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents the question on which the Court granted certiorari, but was unable to resolve, in Board of Education v. Tom F. ex rel. Gilbert F., 128 S. Ct. 1 (2007) (per curiam): Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits a tuition reimbursement award against a school district and in favor of parents who unilaterally place their child in private school, where the child had not previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-35641
In the case of Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents who unilaterally placed their child in private school due to a public school's failure to provide appropriate special education services, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The student, identified only as T.A., was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but his Oregon-based public school district failed to recognize him as eligible for special education services. His parents subsequently enrolled him in a private residential program and sought tuition reimbursement from the district under IDEA. Initially, lower courts denied this claim citing an amendment that limited reimbursements if a child had not previously received special education from a public institution. However, on appeal, it was determined that such limitation did not apply when schools fail their responsibility under IDEA; hence they could be held financially responsible even if students hadn't been receiving specialized instruction or related aid priorly.
In the dissenting opinion for Forest Grove School District v. T.A., Justice David Souter, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, argued that the majority's interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was incorrect. They contended that IDEA does not require public schools to reimburse parents who unilaterally place their children in private schools without first receiving special education services from a public school. The dissenters believed this interpretation contradicted Congress' intent when it amended IDEA in 1997 to limit such reimbursement only to students who had previously received special education services through a public agency. They also expressed concern about potential financial burdens on school districts resulting from increased litigation and reimbursement costs if parents could bypass working collaboratively with public schools before seeking private alternatives.