case_law

In the American legal system, there are four sources of law: the Constitution, statutes, regulations and case law. These four sources of law
exist on both the federal level and the state level. Each source of law is important in determining the content and nature of special education
law. Special education law will make much more sense when you have an understanding of the context in which it operates. Parents and
educators should be knowledgeable about the two levels of government, as well as the four sources of law. For more information on the
American legal system, click here.

Case law refers to "judge-made" law which interprets the Constitution (federal and state), statutes, and regulations. These judicial opinions
are of great significance, as they set important legal precedents. A very small percentage of cases actually result in published opinions. There
are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have had great impact upon special education law. The following Unite States Supreme Court
decisions are of great significance in the world of special education law. Click on the citations to access the full text of the opinion.

Board of Education of City School District of City of New York v. Tom F., 128 S.Ct. 1 (2007)
Split decision (4-4) in U.S. Supreme Court. Parents of a child who has never attended public school can obtain reimbursement for
unilateral placement in private school. Decision affects the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut and Vermont).

Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007)
Supreme Court rules that non-lawyer parents have legal rights under IDEA, and may represent their children's interest in special
education cases.

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 126 S.Ct. 2455 (2006)
Supreme Court holds that parents prevailing in special education actions are not entitled to recover fees for expert witnesses.

Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005)
Supreme Court rules that in a due process hearing challenging an IEP, the burden of proof rests with the party seeking relief.

Florence Co. Sch Dist Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7, (1993)
  The United States Supreme Court held that if a public school district fails to provide an appropriate education, and the student receives
  an appropriate education in a private school, the district must reimburse the parents, even if the private school does not conform to state
  standards.

Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
Supreme Court held that during the pendency of IEP review proceedings, a student with a disability must remain in the ten-current
placement, unless parents and school officials agree otherwise.

Burlington School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts 471 U. S. 359 (1985)
Supreme Court states that when a parent uniliaterally places his/her child in a private school, the parent is entitled to tuition and expenses
reimbursement if a court determines that the school had suggested an inappropriate IEP. On the other hand, if the school's proposed
placement was deemed appropriate, the school would not have to reimburse the placement.

Irving Independent School District v. Amber Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
Supreme Court rules that schools are obligated to provide certain medical treatments (i.e. clean intermittent catheterization) as a
related service, pursuant to the Educational for All Handicapped Children Act.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Supreme Court defines "free appropriate public education."

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Supreme Court forbids segregation in the public school systems.