Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom F., 552 U.S. 1 (2007)
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision by an equally divided Court, indicating that the ruling of the Second Circuit stands without establishing a new legal principle or rule.
In the case of Board of Education of City School District of New York v. Tom F., a family challenged the school district's decision about special education services for their child. The Supreme Court didn't make a new ruling but upheld the lower court's decision, which means the earlier ruling stands. This case matters because it reinforces the rights of families to seek appropriate educational support for children with disabilities, ensuring they have access to the services they need. This case is relevant if you are a parent or guardian trying to advocate for special education services for your child.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of Board of Education of the City School District of New York v. Tom F., the underlying dispute arose from the educational placement of Gilbert F., a minor child with disabilities. Tom F., acting on behalf of his son, challenged the Board of Education's decision regarding Gilbert's Individualized Education Program (IEP) and sought reimbursement for private school tuition, arguing that the public school did not provide an appropriate educational setting for his son. The procedural history began when Tom F. filed a complaint against the Board of Education, leading to a hearing officer's decision that favored him, granting reimbursement for the private school expenses. The Board of Education appealed this decision to the United States District Court, which upheld the hearing officer's ruling. The Board then sought further review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which also affirmed the lower court's decision. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, where the Court was equally divided, resulting in the affirmation of the lower court's judgment. Relevant background context includes the legal framework established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that public schools provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities. The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by parents and educational institutions in determining appropriate educational placements and the responsibilities of school districts under federal law.
Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires a school district to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a child with disabilities in a manner that includes the provision of services in a private school setting when the child is placed there by the parents.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)
Consumer LostThe burden of persuasion in an impartial due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) lies with the party seeking relief.
Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not authorize prevailing parents to recover attorneys' fees for expert services rendered in actions brought under the Act.
Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education, 550 U.S. 81 (2007)
Consumer LostThe statutory language of the federal Impact Aid Act permits the Secretary of Education to determine which school districts to "disregard" when calculating disparities in per-pupil expenditures by considering both the size of the district's expenditures and the number of pupils in the district.
Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007)
Consumer WonParents of a child with disabilities have the right to represent themselves and their child in court proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), even if they are not licensed attorneys.