The Supreme Court today, divided 4-4, affirmed the lower court’s ruling in Board of Education v. Tom F. in a blank per curiam opinion. Justice Kennedy had recused himself from this case.

Tom F. centers around the applicabilty of the Individuals with Disabilities Act to students who have not previously recieved education from a public agency.

Does the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stating that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits tuition reimbursement where a child has not previously received special education from a public agency, stand in direct contradiction to the plain language of 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) which authorizes tuition reimbursement to the parents of a disabled child “who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency”?


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • A Classic Oral Argument Passage: Today's New York Times article about Paul Clement, "Lawyer Opposing Health Law is Familiar Face to the Justices", reminds me of an interesti...
  • Measuring Justice Sotomayor's Liberal Bona Fides: Justice Sotomayor has completed two years on the Supreme Court and, as she begins her third, it seems like an appropriate time to take an in...
  • More Sophisticated Reconferencing Statistics: A commentator on my last conferencing post picked up on an important part of the distribution question that I had intentionally omitted....
  • Updates: I've updated a lot of the information on the Term Case Index in preparation for today's cases. I expect the Supreme Court to hand down 1-2 o...
  • Another Addition to the Two-in-a-Month Club: Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre is scheduled to argue twice during the December sitting, a relatively uncommon feat for private pract...