forest
grove
school
district
argued
april
decided
june
private
specialist
diagnosed
respondent
learning
disabilities
parents
unilaterally
removed
petitioner
public
school
district
school
district
enrolled
private
academy
requested
administrative
hearing
eligibility
services
individuals
disabilities
education
act
idea
et
seq
school
district
found
respondent
ineligible
services
declined
offer
individualized
education
program
iep
concluding
school
district
failed
provide
respondent
free
appropriate
public
education
required
idea
respondent
placement
appropriate
hearing
officer
ordered
school
district
reimburse
parents
tuition
district
set
aside
award
holding
idea
amendments
amendments
categorically
bar
reimbursement
unless
child
previously
received
special
education
related
services
school
authority
ii
reversing
ninth
circuit
concluded
amendments
diminish
authority
courts
grant
reimbursement
appropriate
relief
pursuant
iii
see
school
comm
burlington
department
ed
held
idea
authorizes
reimbursement
private
services
public
school
fails
provide
fape
placement
appropriate
regardless
whether
child
previously
received
services
public
school
pp
held
burlington
florence
county
school
dist
four
carter
iii
authorizes
courts
reimburse
parents
cost
tuition
school
district
fails
provide
child
fape
placement
appropriate
burlington
carter
involved
deficiency
proposed
iep
distinguish
case
fact
children
burlington
carter
previously
received
services
decision
cases
depended
act
language
purpose
rather
particular
facts
involved
thus
reasoning
burlington
carter
applies
unless
amendments
require
different
result
pp
amendments
impose
categorical
bar
reimbursement
amendments
made
change
central
purpose
idea
text
iii
congress
presumed
aware
adopt
judicial
interpretation
statute
reenacts
law
without
change
lorillard
pons
continue
read
iii
authorize
reimbursement
absent
clear
indication
congress
intended
repeal
provision
abrogate
burlington
carter
school
district
argument
ii
limits
reimbursement
children
previously
received
public
services
unpersuasive
several
reasons
supported
idea
text
amendments
expressly
prohibit
reimbursement
case
school
district
offers
evidence
congress
intended
supersede
burlington
carter
odds
idea
remedial
purpose
ensur
ing
children
disabilities
available
fape
emphasizes
special
education
designed
meet
unique
needs
produce
rule
bordering
irrational
providing
remedy
school
offers
child
inadequate
services
leaving
parents
remediless
school
unreasonably
denies
access
services
altogether
pp
school
district
argument
conditions
accepting
idea
funds
must
stated
unambiguously
clearly
satisfied
notice
least
since
burlington
idea
authorizes
courts
order
reimbursement
school
district
claims
respondent
reading
impose
heavy
financial
burden
public
schools
encourage
parents
enroll
children
private
school
without
first
trying
cooperate
authorities
also
unpersuasive
light
restrictions
reimbursement
awards
identified
burlington
fact
parents
unilaterally
change
child
placement
financial
risk
see
carter
pp
affirmed
stevens
delivered
opinion
roberts
kennedy
ginsburg
breyer
alito
joined
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
thomas
joined
forest
grove
school
district
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
individuals
disabilities
education
act
idea
act
stat
amended
et
requires
receiving
federal
funding
make
free
appropriate
public
education
fape
available
children
disabilities
residing
state
previously
held
public
school
fails
provide
fape
child
parents
place
child
appropriate
private
school
without
school
district
consent
may
require
district
reimburse
parents
cost
private
education
see
school
comm
burlington
department
ed
question
presented
case
whether
idea
amendments
amendments
stat
categorically
prohibit
reimbursement
costs
child
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
ii
hold
amendments
impose
categorical
bar
respondent
attended
public
schools
forest
grove
school
district
school
district
district
time
kindergarten
winter
junior
year
high
school
kindergarten
eighth
grade
respondent
teachers
observed
trouble
paying
attention
class
completing
assignments
respondent
entered
high
school
difficulties
increased
december
respondent
freshman
year
mother
contacted
school
counselor
discuss
respondent
problems
schoolwork
end
school
year
respondent
evaluated
school
psychologist
interviewing
examining
school
records
administering
cognitive
ability
tests
psychologist
concluded
respondent
need
testing
learning
disabilities
health
impairments
including
attention
deficit
hyperactivity
disorder
adhd
psychologist
two
school
officials
discussed
evaluation
results
respondent
mother
june
agreed
respondent
qualify
services
respondent
parents
seek
review
decision
although
hearing
examiner
later
found
school
district
evaluation
legally
inadequate
failed
address
areas
suspected
disability
including
adhd
extensive
help
family
respondent
completed
sophomore
year
forest
grove
high
school
problems
worsened
junior
year
february
respondent
parents
discussed
school
district
possibility
respondent
completing
high
school
partnership
program
local
community
college
also
sought
private
professional
advice
march
respondent
diagnosed
adhd
number
disabilities
related
learning
memory
advised
private
specialist
respondent
best
structured
residential
learning
environment
respondent
parents
enrolled
private
academy
focuses
educating
children
special
needs
four
days
enrolling
private
school
respondent
parents
hired
lawyer
ascertain
rights
give
school
district
written
notice
respondent
private
placement
weeks
later
april
respondent
parents
requested
administrative
due
process
hearing
regarding
respondent
eligibility
services
june
district
engaged
school
psychologist
assist
determining
whether
respondent
disability
significantly
interfered
educational
performance
respondent
parents
cooperated
district
evaluation
process
july
multidisciplinary
team
met
discuss
whether
respondent
satisfied
idea
disability
criteria
concluded
adhd
sufficiently
significant
adverse
impact
educational
performance
school
district
maintained
respondent
eligible
services
therefore
declined
provide
individualized
education
program
iep
respondent
parents
left
enrolled
private
academy
senior
year
administrative
review
process
resumed
september
considering
parties
evidence
including
testimony
numerous
experts
hearing
officer
issued
decision
january
finding
respondent
adhd
adversely
affected
educational
performance
school
district
failed
meet
obligations
idea
identifying
respondent
student
eligible
services
district
offer
respondent
fape
placement
appropriate
idea
hearing
officer
ordered
district
reimburse
respondent
parents
cost
school
district
sought
judicial
review
pursuant
arguing
hearing
officer
erred
granting
reimbursement
district
accepted
hearing
officer
findings
fact
set
aside
reimbursement
award
finding
amendments
categorically
bar
reimbursement
tuition
students
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
ii
stat
ii
district
held
ven
assuming
tuition
reimbursement
may
ordered
extreme
case
student
receiving
special
education
services
general
principles
equity
need
special
education
obvious
school
authorities
facts
case
support
equitable
relief
app
pet
cert
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
remanded
proceedings
first
noted
prior
amendments
idea
silent
subject
private
school
reimbursement
courts
granted
reimbursement
relief
principles
equity
pursuant
citing
burlington
held
amendments
impose
categorical
bar
reimbursement
parent
unilaterally
places
private
school
child
previously
received
services
public
school
rather
students
eligible
reimbursement
extent
amendments
relief
pursuant
appeals
also
rejected
district
analysis
equities
resting
two
legal
errors
first
found
ii
generally
bars
relief
circumstances
district
wrongly
stated
relief
appropriate
equities
sufficient
statutory
limitation
district
also
erred
asserting
reimbursement
limited
cases
emphasis
deleted
appeals
therefore
remanded
instructions
reexamine
equities
including
failure
respondent
parents
notify
school
district
removing
respondent
public
school
dissent
judge
rymer
stated
view
reimbursement
available
equitable
remedy
case
respondent
parents
request
iep
removing
public
school
respondent
right
fape
therefore
issue
courts
appeals
considered
question
reached
inconsistent
granted
certiorari
determine
whether
establishes
categorical
bar
tuition
reimbursement
students
previously
received
services
authority
public
education
agency
ii
justice
rehnquist
opinion
unanimous
burlington
provides
pertinent
background
analysis
question
presented
case
respondent
challenged
appropriateness
iep
developed
child
officials
child
previously
received
services
public
school
administrative
review
pending
private
specialists
advised
respondent
child
best
specialized
private
educational
setting
respondent
enrolled
child
private
school
without
school
district
consent
hearing
officer
concluded
iep
adequate
meet
child
educational
needs
school
district
therefore
failed
provide
child
fape
finding
also
placement
appropriate
idea
hearing
officer
ordered
school
district
reimburse
respondent
cost
tuition
granted
certiorari
burlington
determine
whether
idea
authorizes
reimbursement
cost
private
education
parent
guardian
unilaterally
enrolls
child
private
school
public
school
proposed
inadequate
iep
thus
failed
provide
fape
act
time
made
express
reference
possibility
reimbursement
authorized
grant
relief
determines
appropriate
iii
determining
scope
relief
authorized
noted
ordinary
meaning
words
confers
broad
discretion
absent
indication
contrary
relief
appropriate
must
determined
light
act
broad
purpose
providing
children
disabilities
fape
including
publicly
funded
placements
necessary
accordingly
held
provision
grant
authority
includes
power
order
school
authorities
reimburse
parents
expenditures
private
services
ultimately
determines
placement
rather
proposed
iep
proper
act
ibid
decision
rested
part
fact
administrative
judicial
review
parent
complaint
often
takes
years
concluded
mandated
participating
provide
fape
every
student
congress
intended
require
parents
either
accept
inadequate
education
pending
adjudication
claim
bear
cost
private
education
ultimately
determined
private
placement
proper
act
eight
years
later
unanimously
reaffirmed
availability
reimbursement
florence
county
school
dist
four
carter
holding
reimbursement
may
appropriate
even
child
placed
private
school
approved
state
dispute
giving
rise
present
litigation
differs
burlington
carter
concerns
adequacy
proposed
iep
school
district
failure
provide
iep
unlike
respondent
children
cases
previously
received
public
services
differences
insignificant
however
analysis
earlier
cases
depended
language
purpose
act
particular
facts
involved
moreover
child
requires
services
school
district
failure
propose
iep
kind
least
serious
violation
responsibilities
idea
failure
provide
adequate
iep
thus
clear
reasoning
burlington
carter
applies
equally
case
question
whether
amendments
require
different
result
iii
congress
enacted
idea
ensure
children
disabilities
provided
free
appropriate
public
education
emphasizes
special
education
related
services
designed
meet
unique
needs
assure
rights
children
parents
guardians
protected
burlington
quoting
ed
codified
amended
examining
progress
idea
congress
found
substantial
gains
made
area
special
education
needed
done
guarantee
children
disabilities
adequate
access
appropriate
services
see
amendments
intended
place
greater
emphasis
improving
student
performance
ensuring
children
disabilities
receive
quality
public
education
consistent
goal
amendments
preserved
act
purpose
providing
fape
children
disabilities
change
text
provision
considered
burlington
iii
gives
courts
broad
authority
grant
appropriate
relief
including
reimbursement
cost
private
special
education
school
district
fails
provide
fape
congress
presumed
aware
administrative
judicial
interpretation
statute
adopt
interpretation
statute
without
change
lorillard
pons
accordingly
absent
clear
expression
elsewhere
amendments
congress
intent
repeal
portion
provision
abrogate
decisions
burlington
carter
continue
read
iii
authorize
relief
respondent
seeks
school
district
dissent
argue
one
provisions
enacted
amendments
effects
repeal
section
entitled
payment
education
children
enrolled
private
schools
without
consent
referral
public
agency
sets
forth
number
principles
applicable
public
reimbursement
costs
unilateral
placements
section
idea
require
local
educational
agency
pay
cost
education
child
disability
private
school
facility
agency
made
free
appropriate
public
education
available
child
parents
nevertheless
elected
place
private
school
section
ii
provides
hearing
officer
may
require
public
agency
reimburse
parents
cost
enrollment
hearing
officer
finds
agency
made
free
appropriate
public
education
available
child
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
agency
finally
iii
discusses
circumstances
cost
reimbursement
described
clause
ii
may
reduced
denied
parent
fails
give
days
notice
removing
child
public
school
refuses
make
child
available
evaluation
iv
lists
circumstances
parent
failure
give
notice
may
must
looking
primarily
clauses
ii
school
district
argues
congress
intended
provide
exclusive
source
authority
courts
order
reimbursement
parents
unilaterally
enroll
child
private
school
according
district
clause
provides
safe
harbor
school
districts
provide
fape
foreclosing
reimbursement
circumstances
clause
ii
sets
forth
circumstance
reimbursement
appropriate
namely
school
district
fails
provide
fape
child
previously
received
services
public
school
district
contends
discusses
reimbursement
children
previously
received
services
public
school
idea
authorizes
reimbursement
circumstance
dissent
agrees
several
reasons
find
argument
unpersuasive
first
school
district
reading
act
supported
text
context
amendments
expressly
prohibit
reimbursement
circumstances
case
district
offers
evidence
congress
intended
supersede
decisions
burlington
carter
clause
safe
harbor
explicitly
bars
reimbursement
school
district
makes
fape
available
correctly
identifying
child
disability
proposing
iep
adequate
meet
child
needs
clause
says
nothing
availability
reimbursement
school
district
fails
provide
fape
indeed
statement
reimbursement
authorized
school
district
provides
fape
read
indicate
reimbursement
authorized
school
district
fulfill
obligation
clause
ii
likewise
support
district
position
clause
phrased
permissively
stating
courts
may
require
reimbursement
circumstances
foreclose
reimbursement
awards
circumstances
together
clauses
iii
iv
clause
ii
best
read
elaborating
general
rule
courts
may
order
reimbursement
school
district
fails
provide
fape
listing
factors
may
affect
reimbursement
award
common
situation
school
district
provided
child
services
child
parents
believe
services
inadequate
referring
students
previously
received
services
public
school
clauses
ii
iv
premised
history
cooperation
together
encourage
school
districts
parents
continue
cooperate
developing
implementing
appropriate
iep
resorting
unilateral
private
clauses
thus
best
read
elucidative
rather
exhaustive
cf
atlantic
research
noting
statutory
language
may
perfor
significant
function
simply
clarifying
provision
meaning
reading
necessary
avoid
conclusion
congress
abrogated
sub
silentio
decisions
burlington
carter
cases
construed
iii
authorize
reimbursement
school
district
fails
provide
fape
child
placement
appropriate
without
regard
child
prior
receipt
take
congress
failure
comment
category
cases
child
previously
received
services
us
conclude
amendments
substantially
superseded
decisions
large
part
repealed
iii
see
branch
smith
bsent
clearly
expressed
congressional
intention
repeals
implication
favored
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
accordingly
adopt
reading
consistent
school
district
reading
also
odds
general
remedial
purpose
underlying
idea
amendments
express
purpose
act
ensure
children
disabilities
available
free
appropriate
public
education
emphasizes
special
education
related
services
designed
meet
unique
needs
factor
took
account
construing
scope
iii
see
burlington
without
remedy
respondent
seeks
child
right
free
appropriate
education
less
complete
district
position
similarly
conflicts
idea
child
find
requirement
pursuant
obligated
identif
locat
evaluat
children
disabilities
residing
state
ensure
receive
needed
services
see
ii
reading
act
left
parents
without
adequate
remedy
school
district
unreasonably
failed
identify
child
disabilities
comport
congress
acknowledgment
paramount
importance
properly
identifying
child
eligible
services
indeed
immunizing
school
district
refusal
find
child
eligible
services
matter
compelling
child
need
school
district
interpretation
produce
rule
bordering
irrational
particularly
strange
act
provide
remedy
agree
school
district
offers
child
inadequate
services
leave
parents
without
relief
egregious
situation
school
district
unreasonably
denies
child
access
services
altogether
idea
affords
parents
substantial
procedural
safeguards
including
right
challenge
school
district
eligibility
determination
obtain
prospective
relief
see
post
answer
roundly
rejected
argument
burlington
observing
review
process
ponderous
therefore
inadequate
ensure
school
failure
provide
fape
remedied
speed
necessary
avoid
detriment
child
education
like
burlington
see
case
vividly
demonstrates
problem
delay
respondent
parents
first
sought
due
process
hearing
april
district
issued
decision
may
almost
year
respondent
graduated
high
school
dissent
ignores
shortcomings
idea
procedural
safeguards
iv
school
district
advances
two
additional
arguments
reading
act
foreclose
reimbursement
case
first
district
contends
idea
exercise
congress
authority
spending
clause
art
cl
conditions
attached
state
acceptance
funds
must
stated
unambiguously
see
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
applying
principle
held
arlington
central
school
dist
bd
ed
murphy
idea
provision
authorize
courts
award
fees
prevailing
parents
idea
actions
act
put
notice
possibility
awards
arlington
readily
distinguishable
case
accepting
idea
funding
expressly
agree
provide
fape
children
disabilities
see
order
awarding
reimbursement
costs
school
district
fails
provide
fape
merely
requires
district
belatedly
pay
expenses
paid
along
burlington
event
notice
least
since
decision
burlington
idea
authorizes
courts
order
reimbursement
costs
private
services
appropriate
circumstances
pennhurst
notice
requirement
thus
clearly
satisfied
finally
district
urges
respondent
reading
act
impose
substantial
financial
burden
public
school
districts
encourage
parents
immediately
enroll
children
private
school
without
first
endeavoring
cooperate
school
district
dissent
echoes
concern
see
post
several
reasons
fears
unfounded
parents
entitled
reimbursement
federal
concludes
public
placement
violated
idea
private
school
placement
proper
act
carter
even
courts
retain
discretion
reduce
amount
reimbursement
award
equities
warrant
instance
parents
failed
give
school
district
adequate
notice
intent
enroll
child
private
school
considering
equities
courts
generally
presume
officials
properly
performing
obligations
idea
see
schaffer
weast
stevens
concurring
result
criteria
fact
parents
change
child
placement
pendency
review
proceedings
without
consent
state
local
school
officials
financial
risk
carter
quoting
burlington
incidence
placement
public
expense
quite
small
see
brief
national
disability
rights
network
et
al
amici
curiae
idea
amendments
modify
text
iii
read
alter
provision
meaning
consistent
decisions
burlington
carter
conclude
idea
authorizes
reimbursement
cost
private
services
school
district
fails
provide
fape
placement
appropriate
regardless
whether
child
previously
received
special
education
related
services
public
school
hearing
officer
concludes
school
district
failed
provide
fape
private
placement
suitable
must
consider
relevant
factors
including
notice
provided
parents
school
district
opportunities
evaluating
child
determining
whether
reimbursement
cost
child
private
education
warranted
appeals
noted
district
properly
consider
equities
case
need
undertake
analysis
remand
accordingly
judgment
appeals
affirmed
ordered
appendix
title
provides
payment
education
children
enrolled
private
schools
without
consent
referral
public
agency
general
subject
subparagraph
subchapter
require
local
educational
agency
pay
cost
education
including
special
education
related
services
child
disability
private
school
facility
agency
made
free
appropriate
public
education
available
child
parents
elected
place
child
private
school
facility
ii
reimbursement
private
school
placement
parents
child
disability
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
enroll
child
private
elementary
school
secondary
school
without
consent
referral
public
agency
hearing
officer
may
require
agency
reimburse
parents
cost
enrollment
hearing
officer
finds
agency
made
free
appropriate
public
education
available
child
timely
manner
prior
enrollment
iii
limitation
reimbursement
cost
reimbursement
described
clause
ii
may
reduced
denied
aa
recent
iep
meeting
parents
attended
prior
removal
child
public
school
parents
inform
iep
team
rejecting
placement
proposed
public
agency
provide
free
appropriate
public
education
child
including
stating
concerns
intent
enroll
child
private
school
public
expense
bb
business
days
including
holidays
occur
business
day
prior
removal
child
public
school
parents
give
written
notice
public
agency
information
described
item
aa
ii
prior
parents
removal
child
public
school
public
agency
informed
parents
notice
requirements
described
section
title
intent
evaluate
child
including
statement
purpose
evaluation
appropriate
reasonable
parents
make
child
available
evaluation
iii
upon
judicial
finding
unreasonableness
respect
actions
taken
parents
forest
grove
school
district
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
souter
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
respectfully
dissent
school
comm
burlington
department
ed
held
education
handicapped
act
stat
known
individuals
disabilities
education
act
idea
et
authorized
district
order
reimbursement
private
school
tuition
expenses
parents
took
disabled
child
public
school
school
special
education
services
meet
child
needs
said
want
specific
limitation
remedy
within
general
authorization
courts
award
relief
determin
appropriate
ed
codified
iii
however
congress
amended
idea
number
provisions
explicitly
addressing
issue
ayment
education
children
enrolled
private
schools
without
consent
referral
public
agency
amendments
generally
prohibit
reimbursement
school
district
made
free
appropriate
public
education
fape
available
effect
exception
except
agreement
student
previously
received
special
education
services
inadequate
ii
majority
says
otherwise
holds
ii
places
limit
reimbursements
private
tuition
find
provision
clear
enough
affect
rule
burlington
believe
congress
meant
limit
public
reimbursement
unilaterally
incurred
private
school
tuition
authority
heightened
standard
congress
alter
prior
judicial
interpretation
statute
assessment
congressional
policy
aims
falls
short
trumping
seems
clear
limitation
imposed
ii
burlington
parents
child
learning
disability
tried
eight
years
work
satisfactory
individualized
education
plan
iep
son
eventually
gave
sent
boy
private
school
disabled
children
took
ensuing
case
decide
whether
education
handicapped
act
authorized
courts
order
reimbursement
private
special
education
ultimately
determines
placement
rather
proposed
iep
proper
act
noting
various
sections
emphasiz
participation
parents
developing
child
public
educational
program
inferred
act
authorized
reimbursement
providing
district
shall
relief
determines
appropriate
quoting
iii
alteration
original
emphasized
act
speak
specifically
issue
reimbursement
held
bsent
reference
reimbursement
private
tuition
expenses
remedy
light
purposes
act
short
read
general
provision
ordering
equitable
remedies
iii
authorizing
reimbursement
order
large
part
congress
spoken
specifically
issue
congress
speak
explicitly
amended
idea
first
said
whenever
state
local
educational
agency
refers
student
private
special
education
bill
public
expense
see
included
several
clauses
addressing
ayment
education
children
enrolled
private
schools
without
consent
referral
public
agency
first
contrasts
provision
covering
agency
referral
general
subchapter
require
local
educational
agency
pay
cost
education
child
disability
private
school
facility
agency
made
free
appropriate
public
education
available
child
parents
elected
place
child
private
school
facility
second
clause
covers
case
school
authority
failed
make
fape
available
schools
however
provide
simply
authority
must
pay
case
matter
instead
provides
ii
reimbursement
private
school
placement
parents
child
disability
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
enroll
child
private
elementary
school
secondary
school
without
consent
referral
public
agency
hearing
officer
may
require
agency
reimburse
parents
cost
enrollment
hearing
officer
finds
agency
made
free
appropriate
public
education
available
child
timely
manner
prior
enrollment
two
additional
clauses
spell
detail
various
facts
upon
reimbursement
described
clause
ii
may
reduced
denied
see
iii
iv
purely
semantic
matter
provisions
ambiguous
silence
case
previous
special
education
services
fape
available
majority
suggests
ante
clause
theoretically
understood
imply
reimbursement
may
ordered
whenever
school
district
fails
provide
fape
clause
ii
read
merely
taking
care
mention
one
variety
circumstances
reimbursement
permitted
overstretching
permissive
language
covers
special
case
natural
sense
taken
prohibit
fails
authorize
mother
tells
boy
may
go
play
homework
done
knows
means
anyone
reads
authorization
reimbursement
order
case
child
disability
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
ii
mother
mean
homework
done
mention
congress
mean
restrict
reimbursement
authority
reference
previous
receipt
services
even
raise
subject
ne
basic
interpretive
canons
statute
construed
effect
given
provisions
part
inoperative
superfluous
void
insignificant
corley
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
reading
clause
ii
nothing
describe
particular
subset
cases
subject
remedial
authority
already
given
courts
iii
recognized
burlington
may
order
reimbursement
child
previously
received
special
education
related
services
may
child
plausible
notion
congress
added
new
provision
idea
entitled
reimbursement
private
school
placement
effect
whatsoever
reimbursement
private
school
placement
read
clause
written
assumption
school
authorities
expected
honor
obligations
stating
general
rule
unilateral
placement
reimbursed
see
general
read
clause
ii
imposing
receipt
prior
services
limit
exceptions
general
rule
school
officials
fall
short
providing
fape
see
ii
reimbursement
private
school
placement
reading
claim
virtue
avoiding
anomaly
section
iii
limits
otherwise
available
reimbursement
expressly
directed
cost
reimbursement
described
clause
ii
makes
perfect
sense
reading
since
clause
ii
exclusive
source
authority
order
reimbursement
natural
refer
clause
setting
conditions
reducing
even
denying
reimbursement
otherwise
authorized
yet
government
concede
brief
respondent
brief
amicus
curiae
majority
reading
congress
called
reducing
reimbursement
deserving
parents
described
clause
ii
consult
school
district
give
public
special
education
services
try
demanding
payment
private
education
provided
mechanism
reduce
reimbursement
least
deserving
parents
given
public
placement
chance
responds
point
doubling
according
majority
criteria
listed
clause
iii
justify
reduction
reimbursement
described
clause
ii
iii
also
reimbursement
order
authorized
elsewhere
well
ante
majority
avoids
ascribing
perverse
motives
congress
concluding
clause
ii
clause
iii
congress
meant
add
nothing
statutory
scheme
simply
leads
back
question
congress
concerned
cases
children
previously
received
special
education
services
majority
reading
prior
receipt
services
relevance
whatsoever
subject
provision
interpretation
render
clause
ii
pointless
clause
iii
either
pointless
perverse
ii
must
read
allow
reimbursement
parents
child
disability
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
ii
neither
majority
clear
statement
rule
policy
considerations
prevail
better
view
amendments
majority
says
previous
interpretation
act
authorizing
reimbursement
unilateral
private
placement
congress
obliged
speak
added
clarity
alter
statute
understood
ante
majority
refers
two
distinct
principles
support
first
statutes
read
presumption
implied
repeals
ante
citing
branch
smith
plurality
opinion
second
congressional
reenactment
statutory
text
without
change
deemed
ratify
prior
judicial
interpretation
ante
citing
lorillard
pons
think
neither
principle
task
section
way
repealed
provision
considered
relief
appropriate
iii
depends
substantive
provisions
idea
surely
provision
authorized
equitable
relief
consistent
provisions
statute
applied
iii
burlington
expressly
referred
provisions
concluded
absence
specific
rule
appropriate
relief
included
reimbursement
sought
introducing
new
restrictions
reimbursement
amendments
produce
different
conclusion
relief
appropriate
iii
remains
effect
remain
effect
congress
explicitly
amended
idea
prohibit
reimbursement
absent
prior
receipt
services
rule
reenactment
incorporates
prior
interpretation
reliance
preserve
burlington
reading
iii
faces
two
hurdles
first
far
tell
maxim
never
used
impose
clear
statement
rule
congress
suggest
otherwise
reenacted
statutory
language
retains
old
meaning
new
enactment
includes
language
undermining
prior
reading
presumption
favoring
old
course
open
simply
read
revised
statute
whole
reason
distinguish
amendments
occur
single
clause
congress
placed
changes
iii
take
form
separate
section
congress
added
caveat
within
iii
immediately
neighboring
provision
assume
majority
approach
skepticism
ground
purported
modify
prior
judicial
interpretation
second
nothing
reading
ii
inconsistent
holdings
burlington
prior
decision
subject
florence
county
school
dist
four
carter
opinion
burlington
expressly
premised
reference
govern
reimbursement
private
tuition
invited
congress
provide
one
congress
provision
reference
say
least
reason
skepticism
congress
wished
alter
law
reimbursement
legislation
read
way
however
alter
result
either
burlington
carter
case
school
district
agreed
child
disabled
parents
cooperated
district
tried
iep
question
whether
parents
later
resorted
private
school
reimbursed
ultimately
determines
placement
rather
proposed
iep
proper
act
carter
supra
quoting
burlington
supra
ordering
reimbursement
burlington
carter
emphasized
parents
took
part
devising
iep
expressed
concern
parents
sought
iep
placing
child
private
school
received
one
inadequate
result
case
reading
amended
act
sets
parents
parents
child
disability
previously
received
special
education
related
services
authority
public
agency
ii
therefore
much
suggest
reading
ii
abrogat
sub
silentio
decisions
burlington
carter
ante
majority
argues
policy
concerns
vindicated
burlington
carter
justify
reading
cases
authorize
reimbursement
authority
going
beyond
facts
ante
hold
reimbursement
possible
even
parents
like
unilaterally
resort
private
school
without
first
establishing
administrative
appellate
level
child
disabled
engaging
collaborative
process
school
officials
broadly
one
read
burlington
carter
beside
point
congress
explicitly
addressed
subject
statutory
language
precludes
result
today
also
rejects
natural
sense
interpretation
odds
general
remedial
purpose
underlying
idea
amendments
ante
majority
thinks
reading
place
school
authorities
total
control
parents
eligibility
reimbursement
refuse
request
special
education
services
public
school
prior
service
condition
eligibility
clause
ii
never
satisfied
thus
majority
puts
borde
irrational
immuniz
school
district
refusal
find
child
eligible
services
matter
compelling
child
need
ibid
agree
scheme
pretty
absurd
absurdity
majority
suggestion
overlooks
terms
idea
process
substantial
procedures
protecting
child
substantive
rights
idea
significant
costs
rule
start
costs
special
education
immensely
expensive
amounting
tens
billions
dollars
annually
much
public
schools
general
operating
budgets
see
brief
council
great
city
schools
amicus
curiae
private
placement
higher
special
education
bill
fact
lends
urgency
idea
mandate
collaborative
process
iep
developed
jointly
school
official
qualified
special
education
child
teacher
parents
guardian
appropriate
child
burlington
supra
act
repeated
emphasis
need
cooperative
joint
action
school
parent
however
leave
school
control
officials
wish
block
effective
expensive
action
child
benefit
collaborative
approach
breaks
idea
provides
quick
review
due
process
hearing
parents
claim
services
needed
provide
fape
school
willing
give
see
district
must
respond
due
process
hearing
complaint
within
days
hearing
officer
must
assess
facial
validity
complaint
within
days
mediation
available
provided
delay
due
process
hearing
district
must
convene
meeting
parents
within
days
attempt
resolve
complaint
cfr
complaint
resolved
hearing
must
held
within
days
complaint
decision
must
issued
within
days
complaint
parents
remain
dissatisfied
first
two
levels
process
may
right
appeal
state
educational
agency
case
may
bring
action
federal
district
see
scheme
administrative
judicial
review
answer
claim
reading
prior
services
condition
restrictive
illustrative
immunizes
school
district
intransigence
giving
effective
veto
reimbursement
private
said
course
fair
point
prior
services
condition
qualifies
remedial
objective
statute
pursuing
appeals
get
satisfactory
iep
special
services
worth
accepting
discouraging
child
needs
help
stop
needing
stop
growing
schools
parents
argue
back
forth
decide
case
premise
arguments
carried
good
faith
even
assumption
disagreements
adequacy
ieps
impose
burdens
act
intended
beneficiaries
still
persuasive
reason
congress
written
statute
mandate
interpretation
requires
given
burden
private
school
placement
makes
good
sense
require
parents
try
devise
satisfactory
alternative
within
public
schools
taking
part
collaborative
process
developing
iep
modus
operandi
idea
burlington
time
educational
opportunity
lost
consequence
shows
realized
policy
ever
pursued
ultimate
limit
idea
obviously
seek
promote
goals
expense
considerations
including
fiscal
considerations
arlington
central
school
dist
bd
ed
murphy
footnotes
iep
education
plan
tailored
child
unique
needs
designed
school
district
consultation
child
parents
child
identified
eligible
services
see
although
respondent
parents
initially
sought
reimbursement
respondent
reached
age
majority
parents
rights
idea
transferred
pursuant
admin
rule
compare
frank
board
ed
hyde
park
holding
ii
bar
reimbursement
students
previously
received
public
services
school
bd
per
curiam
greenland
school
dist
amy
finding
reimbursement
barred
circumstances
previously
granted
certiorari
address
question
board
ed
city
school
dist
new
york
tom
affirmed
without
opinion
judgment
appeals
second
circuit
equally
divided
vote
time
decided
burlington
provision
codified
amendments
renumbered
provision
alter
text
ease
reference
refer
provision
current
section
number
iii
legislation
enacted
education
handicapped
act
title
vi
pub
stat
renamed
individuals
disabilities
education
act
see
pub
stat
full
text
set
forth
appendix
infra
dissent
asserts
reading
act
congress
called
reducing
reimbursement
deserving
provided
mechanism
reduce
reimbursement
least
deserving
post
opinion
souter
addition
making
unsubstantiated
generalizations
desert
parents
whose
children
denied
public
services
dissent
grossly
mischaracterizes
view
fact
clause
iii
permits
reduce
reimbursement
award
parent
whose
child
previously
received
services
fails
give
school
adequate
notice
intended
private
placement
mean
prohibits
courts
similarly
reducing
amount
reimbursement
parent
whose
child
previously
received
services
fails
give
notice
like
clause
ii
clause
iii
provides
guidance
regarding
appropriateness
relief
common
factual
scenario
instructions
understood
preclude
courts
hearing
officers
considering
similar
factors
scenarios
arguing
exclusive
source
authority
granting
reimbursement
awards
parents
unilaterally
place
child
private
school
dissent
neglects
explain
provision
failure
limit
type
placements
parents
may
reimbursed
school
comm
burlington
department
ed
mass
held
courts
may
grant
reimbursement
iii
school
district
fails
provide
fape
placement
appropriate
see
see
florence
county
school
dist
four
carter
latter
requirement
essential
ensuring
reimbursement
awards
granted
relief
furthers
purposes
act
see
burlington
codify
requirement
indicates
congress
intend
provision
supplant
iii
sole
authority
reimbursement
awards
rather
meant
augment
latter
provision
decisions
construing
discussed
although
children
burlington
carter
previously
received
services
public
school
decisions
way
depended
prior
receipt
services
holdings
rested
instead
breadth
authority
conferred
iii
interest
providing
relief
consistent
act
purpose
injustice
contrary
reading
produce
see
burlington
see
also
carter
considerations
altered
amendments
reason
reject
district
argument
ii
authorizes
hearing
officer
award
reimbursement
tuition
whereas
iii
provides
general
grant
remedial
authority
latter
section
read
authorize
hearing
officers
award
reimbursement
argument
ignores
decision
burlington
interpreted
iii
authorize
hearing
officers
well
courts
award
reimbursement
notwithstanding
provision
silence
regard
hearing
officers
congress
amended
idea
without
altering
text
iii
implicitly
adopted
construction
statute
see
lorillard
pons
looking
amendments
legislative
history
support
school
district
cites
two
house
senate
reports
essentially
restate
text
ii
pp
floor
statement
representative
mike
castle
cong
rec
stating
bill
makes
harder
parents
unilaterally
place
child
elite
private
schools
public
taxpayer
expense
lowering
costs
local
school
districts
ambiguous
references
undermine
meaning
discern
statute
language
context
notably
agency
charged
implementing
idea
adopted
respondent
reading
statute
commentary
regulations
implementing
amendments
department
education
stated
hearing
officers
courts
retain
authority
recognized
burlington
award
relief
public
agency
failed
provide
fape
including
reimbursement
instances
child
yet
received
special
education
related
services
fed
reg
see
fed
reg
footnotes
likewise
one
unsure
whether
rule
within
days
case
placed
docket
appellee
may
file
motion
dismiss
allows
motion
dismiss
days
see
also
carlisle
listing
numerous
examples
permissive
statements
federal
rule
criminal
procedure
statement
subpoena
may
served
person
less
years
age
plainly
carry
restrictive
meaning
majority
says
clause
ii
best
read
elaborating
general
rule
courts
may
order
reimbursement
school
district
fails
provide
fape
listing
factors
may
affect
reimbursement
award
common
situation
school
district
provided
child
services
child
parents
believe
services
inadequate
ante
another
way
reading
provision
books
majority
reading
clause
ii
may
award
reimbursement
previous
receipt
special
education
services
failure
provide
fape
description
common
subset
category
already
described
may
called
elaboration
still
effect
statutory
scheme
presumption
implied
repeals
justify
reading
later
provision
useless
even
applied
since
two
provisions
irreconcilable
presumption
implied
repeals
gives
way
later
enactment
see
branch
smith
plurality
opinion
one
example
suggest
grant
reimbursement
iii
parents
nondisabled
child
obvious
assume
iii
read
light
substantive
provisions
statute
majority
argues
already
rejected
process
inadequate
school
comm
burlington
department
ed
ante
enactment
ii
question
burlington
whether
reimbursement
appropriate
remedy
iii
see
statement
contrary
congress
expressed
concern
possible
length
idea
review
process
surmised
congress
intended
reimbursement
authorized
ibid
congress
provided
statement
contrary
reading
gives
effect
ii
reimbursement
permitted
absent
prior
placement
question
whether
congress
meant
said
see
cong
rec
statement
castle
law
unintended
costly
consequences
resulted
school
districts
unnecessarily
paying
expensive
private
school
tuition
children
resulted
cases
lawyers
gamed
system
detriment
schools
children
bill
makes
harder
parents
unilaterally
place
child
elite
private
schools
public
taxpayer
expense
lowering
costs
local
school
districts