Schaffer v. Weast, No. 04-698 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2005)
In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether the disabled child or the school district. However, the court declined to address whether states could enact their own laws placing the burden of proof on school districts, because no such state law was at issue in the case. The parents of Brian Schaffer, a special education student in Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), challenged his initial IEP in a due process hearing. After a series of decisions by the hearing officer, the federal district court, and the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the burden of proof under IDEA, as under most laws, is on the party seeking relief. In affirming this decision, the Supreme Court rejected the parents' "conclusion, in effect, that every IEP should be assumed to be invalid until the school district demonstrates that it is not." Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, wrote that the core of IDEA "is the cooperative process that it establishes between parents and schools" and that "Congress has repeatedly amended the Act to reduce its administrative and litigation-related costs." As for concerns over the district's "natural advantage" in information and expertise, the Court concluded that Congress had addressed that issue when it "obliged schools to safeguard the procedural rights of parents and to share information with them." Congress had bolstered these safeguards by adding provisions "requiring school districts to answer the subject matter of a complaint in writing, and to provide parents with the reasoning behind the disputed action, details about the other options considered and rejected by the IEP team, and a description of all evaluations, reports, and other factors that the school used in coming to its decision."
Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing that "schools striving to balance their budgets… will favor educational options that allow them to conserve resources" and that the burden of proof is an important check on this tendency. She suggested that if MCPS had initially offered Brian the IEP it eventually provided, the whole lawsuit could have been avoided and that if the burden of proof would "saddle school systems with inordinate costs," then nine states would not have submitted an
amicus brief in support of the parents. Justice Breyer filed a separate dissent arguing that Congress had left the decision over the burden on proof to the states. Justice Stevens filed a short concurrence indicating that, while he agreed with much of Justice Ginsburg's views of IDEA, "we should presume that public school officials are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under this important statute." Chief Justice Roberts took no part in consideration or decision of the case.
Schaffer v. Weast, No. 04-698 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2005)
[Majority opinion][Stevens concurring opinion][Ginsburg dissenting opinion][Breyer dissenting opinion][
Editor's Note: For background on the case, including NSBA's amicus
brief, access the past Legal Clips
summaries starting below. For reactions to the ruling, as well as speculation about its impact, see NSBA's daily blog, BoardBuzz.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Schaffer v. Weast][BoardBuzz on Schaffer v. Weast]