Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Board Of Education Of The Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, Et Al. v. Rowley, By Her Parents, Rowley Et Ux.

• 1981 • 458 U.S. 176 • Burger Court
In the 1981 case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al. v. Rowley, by her parents, Rowley et ux., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning special education for children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Amy Rowley was a deaf student who excelled academically despite receiving only limited services from her school district in New York State. Her parents sued for more comprehensive...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1981
Docket: 80-1002
458 U.S. 176
102 S. Ct. 3034
73 L. Ed. 2d 690
1982 U.S. LEXIS 10
Argued: Mar 23, 1982

Board Of Education Of The Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, Et Al. v. Rowley, By Her Parents, Rowley Et Ux.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1981 case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al. v. Rowley, by her parents, Rowley et ux., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning special education for children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Amy Rowley was a deaf student who excelled academically despite receiving only limited services from her school district in New York State. Her parents sued for more comprehensive assistance including a sign language interpreter in all classes which they believed she was entitled to under IDEA. The court held that while IDEA requires states to provide disabled students with "access" to public education, it does not guarantee any particular level of education once access is provided. Therefore, as long as Amy was able to keep up with her non-disabled peers and advance from grade-to-grade successfully without additional support like an interpreter present at all times during class hours - even if she could have achieved more had such support been given - then there would be no violation of IDEA.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Board of Education v. Rowley, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of "appropriate" education was too narrow and failed to fully consider Congress' intent in passing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). He contended that IDEA aimed not just at providing access to public schools but also ensuring a meaningful educational benefit for disabled students. The majority's decision, he believed, undermined this goal by setting a low bar for what constituted an appropriate education - merely more than de minimis progress. Instead, Blackmun suggested that courts should require school districts to provide services sufficient enough to help disabled students make significant academic progress commensurate with their potential. This standard would better reflect Congress' intent and ensure equal educational opportunities for all children regardless of disability status.

Opinion written by Justice WHRehnquist
Decided: Jun 28, 1982
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms