Case Law
Landmark education and special education court decisions — explained in plain language. Understand what the courts have said about your rights.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
Outcome
Reversed and remanded — higher FAPE standard adopted
Plain-Language Summary
The Supreme Court unanimously held that IEPs must be "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." This is a higher standard than the "merely more than de minimis" standard some lower courts had applied.
Why It Matters
Endrew F. is the most important special education case in decades. It raised the bar for what schools must provide and gives families a stronger legal argument when IEPs are inadequate.
Board of Education v. Rowley
Outcome
Affirmed — school's IEP was adequate
Plain-Language Summary
The Supreme Court's first major special education case established the original FAPE standard: schools must provide "some educational benefit" to students with disabilities. The Court held that IDEA does not require schools to maximize a student's potential.
Why It Matters
Rowley established the foundational FAPE standard for 35 years. While Endrew F. raised the bar, Rowley remains important for understanding the history and evolution of special education law.
Honig v. Doe
Outcome
Affirmed — school cannot unilaterally exclude students with disabilities
Plain-Language Summary
The Supreme Court held that schools cannot unilaterally exclude students with disabilities from school for dangerous or disruptive conduct arising from their disability. The "stay-put" provision of IDEA requires students to remain in their current placement during dispute proceedings.
Why It Matters
Honig established the "stay-put" rule and the Manifestation Determination Review process, protecting students with disabilities from being excluded from school without due process.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
Outcome
Reversed — parents have independent rights under IDEA
Plain-Language Summary
The Supreme Court held that parents have independent, enforceable rights under IDEA — not just as representatives of their child. This means parents may represent themselves (pro se) in IDEA proceedings without an attorney.
Why It Matters
Winkelman empowers parents by confirming they have their own legal rights under IDEA, not just derivative rights through their child. This is important for families who cannot afford an attorney.
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H.
Outcome
Affirmed — student with intellectual disability entitled to full inclusion
Plain-Language Summary
The Ninth Circuit established a four-factor test for determining whether a student with a disability should be placed in a general education classroom: (1) educational benefits of full inclusion, (2) non-academic benefits, (3) effect on the teacher and other students, and (4) cost.
Why It Matters
Rachel H. is the leading LRE case in California and the Ninth Circuit. It provides a framework for analyzing whether a student should be included in general education and is frequently cited in California IEP disputes.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
Outcome
Affirmed — school's placement in separate special education class was appropriate
Plain-Language Summary
The Fifth Circuit established a two-part test for LRE: (1) Can education in the general classroom be achieved satisfactorily with supplementary aids and services? (2) If not, has the school mainstreamed the student to the maximum extent appropriate?
Why It Matters
Daniel R.R. is one of the foundational LRE cases and is cited alongside Rachel H. in many jurisdictions. It emphasizes that LRE is not a one-size-fits-all standard.