In the 2005 case Schaffer v. Weast, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that in disputes over a child's individualized education program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the burden of proof falls on the party seeking relief. The parents of Brian Schaffer, a student with learning disabilities, disagreed with Montgomery County Public Schools about his IEP and sought to have their private school tuition reimbursed by arguing that public schools failed to provide an appropriate education plan for their son. However, they were unable to prove this claim sufficiently in court. The ruling clarified who bears responsibility for demonstrating whether or not an IEP is suitable for a particular student's needs when disagreements arise between parents and schools.

In the dissenting opinion for Schaffer v. Weast, Justice Ginsburg argued that the burden of proof should fall on school districts in disputes over individualized education programs (IEPs) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). She reasoned that schools have greater resources and expertise than parents, making it more appropriate for them to bear this responsibility. Additionally, she pointed out that IDEA was designed to protect children's rights and ensure they receive an appropriate public education tailored to their unique needs. Shifting the burden of proof onto parents could undermine these protections by creating a power imbalance between families and school districts. Therefore, she disagreed with the majority's decision which placed this burden on parents.