Legal Clips, [March 2007]The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral argument in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, Docket No. 05-983, a case examining to what extent, if any, a non-lawyer parent of a minor child with a disability may represent his or her child without an attorney, in a federal court action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In Winkelman, the Sixth Circuit granted the school district’s motion to dismiss the parents’ appeal because they were prosecuting the appeal without a lawyer. The court relied on its prior decision in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School District, in which it held that non-lawyer parents of special education students may not represent their children in an IDEA suit and also rejected the argument that IDEA grants parents a cognizable legal right of their own to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for their child. Jean-Claude Andre, the Winkelman’s attorney, told the Court "[w]hat we’re advocating here is really access to courts." David B. Salmons, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, who also argued in support of the parents, contended that the key to the case is in the section of IDEA providing that a federal lawsuit may be brought by "any party aggrieved" by the prior administrative proceedings. Both Mr. Andre and Mr. Salmons emphasized that parents should be seen as advocating their own rights in such lawsuits, not simply standing in as representatives of their children.
However, Pierre H. Bergeron, representing the Parma City School District, argued that to the contrary, claims asserted by parents in these lawsuits are simply "derivative," based on the rights that IDEA gives to children themselves. He added that the statute gives parents certain procedural rights, but not substantive entitlements. Mr. Bergeron also told the Court that this was not enough to "circumvent" the basic rule that a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent another person in court. While the justices appeared attentive to both parties’ arguments, some justices may have tipped their hand during questioning as to where their sympathies lie. Justice Stephen Breyer informed Mr. Bergeron that he would have an "uphill battle" to persuade him that despite the statute’s numerous references to parents, the phrase "party aggrieved" should be interpreted as applying only to children. Justice David Souter also seemed to signal his support for the parents when he told Mr. Bergeron that the statutory right to a "free appropriate public education" appeared to be "a right of the family group, the parents and the child together, rather than the right of the child alone." Meanwhile, Justice Antonin Scalia told Mr. Andre that lawyers "protect the court from frivolous suits." When suits are brought without lawyers, "we make a lot more work for federal district judges," he added. Mr. Andre’s response that "a capable district judge can look at the case and decide whether the school should have complied with the statutory mandate" did not satisfy Justice Scalia. "And do it right after reading pro se prisoner petitions, right?" the justice said, using the legal term for a case filed without a lawyer. "We think that pro se parents are quite different from pro se prisoners," Mr. Andre replied. In addition to Justice Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also seemed skeptical of the parents' claims.
New York Times
By Linda Greenhouse
[Full story]
Mercury News
By Mark Sherman (Associated Press)
[Full story]
[Editor’s Note: For background on the Winkelman suit, see below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Winkelman v. Parma City School District]