The U.S. Supreme Court case Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 2006 involved a dispute over the rights of parents under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Winkelmans, parents of an autistic child, argued that their son's school district failed to provide him with a free appropriate public education as required by IDEA. When they could not afford legal representation for their appeal in federal court, they sought to represent themselves and their son’s interests pro se - meaning without attorney representation. However, lower courts ruled that non-lawyer parents could not do so because it would constitute unauthorized practice of law since they were technically representing another person – their child. In May 2007, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in a 7-2 ruling stating that IDEA grants rights to both children and parents; therefore allowing non-lawyer parents to argue on behalf of themselves and indirectly on behalf of their children in federal court when alleging violations under IDEA.

In the dissenting opinion for Winkelman v. Parma City School District, Justice Scalia argued that parents of children with disabilities do not have rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to litigate their child's educational placement without an attorney. He contended that IDEA grants rights only to the disabled child and not directly to his or her parents. Therefore, he believed that when parents represent their interests in court, they are essentially practicing law without a license which is prohibited by federal law unless they are representing themselves personally - something he did not believe was applicable in this case as it pertains specifically to their son’s education plan rather than any direct legal implications on them as individuals. In essence, Scalia disagreed with majority view because he saw it as allowing non-lawyer parents to engage in unauthorized practice of law.