Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)
Primary Holding
The burden of persuasion in an impartial due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) lies with the party seeking relief.
In the case of Schaffer v. Weast, the Supreme Court decided that when parents challenge their child's special education plan, they are the ones who need to prove their case in a hearing. This is important because it sets a clear rule about who has the responsibility to show that changes are needed in a child's education plan under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This ruling helps protect consumers, particularly parents of children with disabilities, by clarifying their role in disputes over educational services. If you're in a situation where you believe your child's education plan isn't adequate, this case reminds you that you'll need to gather evidence to support your claims during any hearings.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Schaffer v. Weast, the dispute arose from the educational placement of Brian Schaffer, a minor with disabilities, whose parents, Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer, sought to challenge the individualized education program (IEP) developed by the Montgomery County Public Schools. The Schaffers believed that the IEP was inappropriate and requested an impartial due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Act mandates that school districts provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities and outlines the process for parents to contest the adequacy of their child's IEP. The procedural history of the case began when the Schaffers initiated a due process hearing to contest the IEP. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district, determining that the IEP was appropriate. The Schaffers subsequently appealed this decision to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which upheld the hearing officer's ruling. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which also affirmed the lower court's decision. The Schaffers petitioned for a writ of certiorari, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the case. The relevant background context includes the IDEA's framework, which was designed to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate educational services. The Act, however, does not specify which party bears the burden of persuasion in due process hearings. This ambiguity became a central issue in the case, as the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the burden of persuasion lies with the party seeking relief, which in this instance was the Schaffers. This ruling clarified the procedural expectations for future disputes under IDEA.
Whether the burden of persuasion in an impartial due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) lies with the party seeking relief.
The judgment is reversed and remanded.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- October 5, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for defendants convicted on their pleas who seek access to first-tier review in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005)
Consumer LostA defendant's guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and a conviction may be overturned if the prosecution later adopts a theory of the case that is inconsistent with the one presented during the defendant's trial.
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)
Consumer WonA federal district court has the discretion to stay a mixed petition for habeas corpus to allow a petitioner to exhaust unexhausted claims in state court before returning to federal court for review.
Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U.S. 40 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Tax Court's practice of withholding special trial judges' reports from the public and excluding them from the record on appeal violates the principles of due process and transparency in judicial proceedings.