2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-2-2005 

# L a wre nce T wp B d E d v . N ew J e rsey P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3637

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L a wr e nc e T wp Bd E d v

. N ew J e r s ey " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 629. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/629P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 3637
L AWRE NC E T OWNS HI P BO AR D OF E DUC AT I ON,

A ppel l ant

v. STATE OF N EW J ERSEY
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 04073 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e St anl eyR
. C hes l er

A r gued: J une 29, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , R E N D E L L , and B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t2, 2005)

J ames F. Schw er i n, E s q. ( A r gued) P a rk e r, M c C a y& C risc u o lo 1009 L enox D r i ve B ui l di ng 4 E as t , Sui t e 102A L aw r ence vi l l e, N J 08648 C ouns el forA ppel l antT o p rese rve the c h il d ’s priva cy , sh e a n d h er f am il yare 1 referred t o in al l cou rtdo cum ents on l ybytheiri nit i al s. 2 M i chae l C
. W al t er s , E s q. ( A r gued) O ffi ce of the A t t orneyG ener al of N ew J er s ey D i vi s i on of Law P. O
. B ox 112 25 M arketSt r eet T r ent on, N J 08625 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge E
. E
. , a chi l d w hos e fa m i l yr es i des i n L aw r ence 1 T ow ns hi p, N ew J er s ey , s uffe r s fr om di abet es and aut i s m . T he part i es agr ee thatE
. E
. i s “di s abl ed” a s thatt erm i s defi ned i n the I n d i v i d u a l s wi th Di s a b i l i t i e s Ed u c a t i o n Ac t( “ I DEA” ) , 2 0 U. S
. C. §§ 1400- 82. E
. E
. ’ s par ent s r egi s t er ed herw i th the N ew J er s ey D i vi s i on of D evel opm ent al D i s abi l i t i es ( “D D D ”) , a di vi s i on of the St at e D epart m entof H um an Servi ces . T he D D D i s char ged w i th pr ovi di ng s peci al i zed s ervi ces “di r ect ed t ow ar d the a llev iatio n o f

a d e v e lo p m e n tal d isa b ili tyo r to w a rd th e so c ial, per s onal , phy s i cal oreconomi c habi l i t at i on orr ehabi l i t at i on of a p e rs o n w ith a d e v e lo p m e n ta l d is a b ility.” N .J . S ta t. A n n . § 3 0 :6 D -2 5
. A tthe t i m e the compl ai ntw as fi l ed, E
. E
. w as a day stu d e n t at th e E d e n In stitu te, a sc h o o l w h ich sp e c ializ e s in addr es s i ng the nee ds of aut i s t i c chi l dr en. A m ong other pr obl ems, E
. E
. ’ s condi t i on caus es hert o engage i n s el f- i nj ur i ous b e h a v i o r . Al th o u g h th i s b e h a v i o rc o u l d b e c o n tr o l l e d whi l e E. E.T he E.s neve rfi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tL aw r ence 2 T ow ns hi p, and ar e notpart i es t o the i ns t antl i t i gat i on. 3 was a tth e I n s t i tu t e , i tc o u l d n o tb e c o n tr o l l e d a th o me , a n d E. E. w a s, th e re f

o re , a d a n g e r to h e rse lf

w h e n o u tsid e th e c lo se ly m o n ito re d e n v iro n m e n t o f th e sc h o o l. In o rd e r to a d d re ss th is s i tuat i on, E
. E
. ’ s par ent s and the Law r ence T ow ns hi p School D i s tr i ctB oar d of Educat i on ( “Law r ence T ow ns hi p”) agr eed that E
. E
. s houl d be pl ace d i n a r es i dent i al fac i l i tyw her e s he ca n r ece i ve pr opercar e atal l t i m es , and s peci fi cal l yagr eed thats he s houl d be pl ace d atA l l i es , I nc. , a fa ci l i tyi n H ami l t on, N ew J er s ey . W e w er e advi s ed ator al ar gum entthats he i s now ther e. E .E .’s p a re n ts re q u e ste d th a t D D D f u n d th is p lac e m e n t, b u t , f o rr e a s o n s n o tr e l e v a n th e r e , DD D r e f u s e d
. I n s t e a d , E. E. w as pl ace d on a D D D w ai t i ng l i s tof per s ons el i gi bl e for r es i dent i al pl ace m ent , and, as of Sept ember26, 2002, E
. E
. w as num ber231 on t hatl i s t . L aw r ence T ow ns hi p, w hi ch i s fi nanci ng E
. E
. ’ s pl ace m ent , a pl ace m entforw hi ch i tpai d $235, 367 forthe 2003- 2004 s chool y ear , fi l ed thi s act i on, al l egi ng that , underthe ID E A , the S t at e of N ew Jer seyw as obli gated t o assum e t he co st of the pl ace m ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatL aw r ence 2 T ow ns hi p does nothave a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on underthe I D E A , and gr ant ed N ew J er s ey ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I. T he I D E A author i zes fede r al fundi ng fors t at e and l ocal agenc i es t o pr ovi de forthe educ at i onal needs of di s abl ed chi l dr en. E verys t at e educ at i onal agenc y( “SE A ”) orl ocal educa t i onal agenc y( “LE A ”) w hi ch r ece i ves fundi ng underthe ID E A m u st p ro v id e d isa b led c h ild re n w ith a “ f re e a p p ro p ria te p u b lic e d u c a tio n .” (“ F A P E ” ). See 2 0 U
. S
. C
. § 1 4 1 2 (a)(1) (2 0 0 3 ). F e d e ra l f u n d in g u n d e r th e ID E A is “ c o n tin g e n t o n sta te compl i ance w i th i t s arr ayof s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al r equi r ement s . ” B e th V

. v. C a rr o ll , 87 F. 3d 80, 82 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( ci t i ng 20 U
. S. C
. § 1412)
. I n N ew J er s ey , the LE A s , i ncl udi ng L aw r ence T ow ns hi p, ar e ves t ed w i th the r es pons i bi l i tyfor4 pr ovi di ng and admi ni s t er i ng a FA PE , i n acc or dance w i th the re q u ir e m e n ts o f

th e ID E A
. See N
. J A dm i n. C ode § 6A : 14- 1
. 1 (d). A ti s s ue her e ar e s om e of the pr ocedur al s afe guar ds s et f o rth in th e ID E A . A s a n in iti a l m a tter, w e n o te th a t ce rta in p rov isi o n s o f th e ID E A w ere alt ere d b ylegislat ion in D ec em b er, 2 0 0 4 , e f f e c tiv e J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 5
. See Pub. L
. 108- 446, T i t l e I , § 101, 118 St at . 2647. N onethel es s , amendm ent s t o the I D E A have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on onl y , and nei therpartyar gues thatthe new amendm ent s s houl d appl yt o thi s cas e. T her efor e, the pr ovi s i ons i n eff

ectatthe t i m e the compl ai ntw as fi l ed i n 2003 w ill b e a p p lie d h e re . S e e T u c ke rv . C a llo w a

y C o u n ty B d . o

f E d ., 136 F. 3d 495, 501 ( 6th C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng Fow l erv. U ni f i ed School D is tr i ct N o. 259 , 1 2 8 F
. 3 d 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 6 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 )); He a th e r S . v. W

isc o n sin , 1 2 5 F .3 d 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 6 2 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Am o n g th o s e p r o v i s i o n s i s s e c t i o n 1 4 1 2 o f th e I DE A, w hi ch s t at es , i n r el evantpart , that“[t ] he s t at e educ at i onal agenc y is re sp o n sib le f

o r e n su rin g th a t.. .the re q u ire m e n ts o f th is s u b c h a p te r a re m e t.” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 2 (a )( 1 1 )( A )( i) (2 0 0 3 ). Sect i on 1415( b) pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , that“the pr ocedur es r equi r ed bythi s s ect i on s hal l i ncl ude.
. . an opportuni tyt o pr es ent compl ai nt s w i th r es pectt o anym att err el at i ng t o the i dent i fi cat i on, eval uat i on, oreduca t i onal pl ace m entof the chi l d, orthe pr ovi s i on of a f

r ee a ppr opr i at e publ i c educ at i on t o s uch chi l d. ” 20 U
. S. C
. § 1415( b) ( 6) ( 2003)
. Sect i on 1415( i ) ( 2) p ro v id e s th a t an y“ p a rtya g g rie v e d ” m a yb rin g a c iv il ac tio n in f e d e ra l d istric t co u rt o r sta te c o u rt. R e ly in g u p o n th e se p ro v isio n s, L a w re n c e T o w n sh ip ar gues thatthe fundi ng forE
. E
. ’ s pl ace m entatA l l i es i s “a m att err el at i ng t o. . . the pr ovi s i on of” E. E
. ’ s FA PE , and, th e re f o re , f a lls w ith in th e f

ra m e w o rk o f

s e c tio n 1 4 1 5 (b )( 6 ). M or eover , beca us e the s t at es ar e ul t i m at el yr es pons i bl e for ful fi l l i ng the r equi r ement s of the I D E A , the Tow ns hi p ar gues thati thas the r i ghtt o br i ng an ac t i on underthe I D E A t o for ceCo n g r e s s h a s a b r o g a t e d s o v e r e i g n i mmu ni tyf o rc l a i ms 3 u n d e r t h e ID E A
. See 2 0 U
. S
. C
. § 1 4 0 3 (20 0 3 ). 5 N ew J er s eyt o fund E. E
. ’ s pl ace m ent . N ew J er s eyar gues that 3 L aw r ence T ow ns hi p l acks s t andi ng beca us e, as an LE A , i thas n o p ri v a te ri g h t o f

a c tio n u n d e r t h e ID E A
.

II. Feder al court s ar e court s of l i m i t ed j ur i s di ct i on, and may he a ra c t i on s on l yw he r e a utho r i z e d t o d o s o b yCongr e s s . U
. S. C ons t . A r t . I I I , § 1. T he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es has m a d e it q u ite c lea r th a t “pr i vat e r i ght s of ac t i on t o enfor ce f eder al l aw m u st b e c re a ted b yC o n g re ss . T h e ju d icia l tas k is to in terp re t th e sta tu te C o n g re ss h a s p a ss e d to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it d isp lays a n in ten t to c re a te n o t ju s t a p ri v a te ri g h t b u t a ls o a p ri v a te re m e d y . S tatu to ryin ten t o n th is la tter p o in t is det erm i nat i ve. W i thouti t , a ca us e of a ct i on does notexi s tand court s m aynotcr eat e one, no m att er how des i r abl e thatm i ghtbe as a pol i cym att er , or how compat i bl e w i th the s t atut e. ” A lex a n d e r v . Sa n d o v a l, 532 U
. S. 275, 286- 87 ( 2001) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s o m itted). Sect i on 1415( a) of the I D E A , ent i t l ed “e s t abl i s hm entof pr ocedur es , ” pr ovi des thatpr ocedur es s hal l be es t abl i s hed and m ai nt ai ned “i n acc or dance w i th thi s s ect i on t o ens ur e that chi l dr en w i th di s abi l i t i es and thei rpar ent s ar e guar ant eed pr ocedur al s afe guar ds w i th r es pectt o the pr ovi s i on of [a F A P E ].” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (a ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Si m i l ar l y , s ect i on 1412( a) ( 6) , w hi ch i s ent i t l ed “pr ocedur al sa f e g u a rd s,” p ro v id e s th a t “[ c ]h ild re n w ith d isa b ili ties a n d th e ir par ent s ar e af

for ded the pr ocedur al s afe guar ds r equi r ed by s e c tio n [ 1 4 1 5 ].” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 2 (a )( 6 )( A ) ( 2 0 0 3 ).A l though L aw r ence T ow ns hi p i ni t i al l yar gued thati thas 4 both an expr es s and an i m pl i ed r i ghtof ac t i on underthe I D E A , at or al ar gum en tcouns el forthe Tow ns hi p conce ded thati thas no expr es s r i ghtof ac t i on. 6 T h is la n g u a g e stro n g lysu g g e sts th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to pr ovi de a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on onl yt o di s abl ed chi l dr en and thei rpar ent s . I ndeed, s ect i on 1415( b) , w hi ch s et s for th the types of pr ocedur es r equi r ed, l i m i t s m os tr el i ef unde rthos e pr ocedur es to th e p a re n ts o f

a d is a b le d c h ild
. N onethel es s , s ect i on 1415( b) ( 6) , the pr ovi s i on upon w h ic h L a w re n c e T o w n s h ip re lie s , c o n ta in s n o s u c h lim ita tio n . T hus , the Tow ns hi p ar gues thatthe br oaderl anguage of s ect i on 1415( b) ( 6) – “an opportuni tyt o pr es entcompl ai nt s w i th r es pect to a n ym a tter...” – c lea rlyd e m o n stra tes th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to p e rm it p e rso n s o r e n tit ies o th e r th a n p a re n ts a n d c h ild re n to br i ng an ac t i on underthe I D E A
. W e di s agr ee. W hi l e s ect i on 4 1 4 1 5 (b )(6 ) is c ra f

ted m o re b ro a d lyth a n o th e r su b se c tio n s, th is fac tal one does noti ndi cat e an i nt entt o perm i ta pr i vat e r i ghtof act i on byan LE A agai ns ta s t at e. I ns t ead, w hen exa m i ned i n the cont extof the I D E A as a w hol e, the l anguage of s ect i on 14 15 (b) (6) i s atbestam biguou s. Fors i m i l arr eas ons , L aw r ence T ow ns hi p has no i m pl i ed r i ghtof ac t i on underthe I D E A
. A s the Supr eme C our thas i ns truct ed, “‘ unl es s [the] congr es s i onal i nt entcan be i nferr ed f r o m th e l a n g u a g e o f

th e s t a tu t e , th e s t a tu t o rys tru c tu r e , o rs o me o th e r so u rc e , the e ss e n tial p re d ica te f o r im p lica tio n o f

a p riv a te r emedys i m pl ydoes notexi s t . ’ ” T h o m p s o n v . T

h o m p s o n , 484 U
. S. 174, 179 ( 1988) ( quot i ng N or thw es tA i r l i nes , I

nc. v. T ranspo rt W orkers , 451 U
. S. 77, 94 ( 1981) )
. A s the D i s tr i ct C ou rtno t ed, “t his case i s not abou tthe ch i l d’s educati on al need s, b u t r athe r th e T o w n sh ip’s fisca l on es.” A p p . 2 5
. A b u d g etary di s put e betw een l ocal and s t at e age nci es i s s i m pl ynotamong t he p riv a te a c tio n s c o n tem p late d b yth e ID E A , an d is tra d iti o n a lly th e typ e o f

d is p u te le f

t to s ta te a n d lo c a l a u th o ri tie s . I n t hi s r egar d, i ti s s i gni fi cantt o not e thatthe ca s es r el i ed7 u p o n b yL a w re n c e T o w n sh ip , ca se s in w h ich c o u rts h a v e h e ld thata pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on exi s t ed, w er e nea r l yal l i ni t i at ed by th e p a re n ts o f

a d is a b le d c h ild
. See, e. g. , B eth V
. , 87 F. 3d 80; John T. v. I

ow a D ep’ tof

E d. , 2 5 8 F
. 3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 2 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); G ads by v. G r as m i ck , 1 0 9 F .3 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 8 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); T o dd D. v . An dr e ws , 9 3 3 F .2 d 1 5 7 6 , 1 5 7 9 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); D avi d D

. v. Da r tmo u th Sc h

. Co mm. , 7 7 5 F
. 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 4 ( 1 s tC i r . 1 9 8 5 )
. We do notdi s agr ee w i th t he pr opos i t i on thatthe par ent s of a dis abled chil d h ave a p ri vate r i gh tof ac t i on . T ho se cases, how ever , do noteven di s cus s , m uch l es s deci de, w hetheran L E A has a s i m i l arr i ghtof ac t i on agai ns tthe s t at e, the i s s ue befor e us . A l though St
. Tam m any Parr is h School B oar d v. Louis i ana , 142 F. 3d 776 ( 5th C i r . 1998) , di d i nvol ve an a ct i on br oughtbyan LE A agai ns tL oui s i ana, i tw as i n the cont extof litig a tio n f

ile d b yth e p a re n ts a g a in s t b o th th e L E A a n d th e s ta te . T hus , the LE A i n St
. Tam m any m er el ys oughtthe i m pos i t i on of i nt er i m l i abi l i ty , as betw een i t s el f and the s t at e, pendi ng the ul t i m at e out come of t he under l y i ng l i t i gat i on. T he courti n S t. Tam m any nev er address ed the i ssue of w hetheran L E A has a p r i v a t e r i g h to f

a c t i o n u n d e rth e I DE A. T h o se c o u rts th a t h a v e a d d re ss e d th e iss u e h a v e h e ld a g a in s t th e L E A
. See, e. g. , A ndr ew s v. Ledbet t er , 880 F. 2d 1287, 1290 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( “nothi ng i ndi cat es thatC ongr es s i nt ended to g ra n t an L E A sta tu to rysta n d in g to b rin g su it t o c o m p e l a s tate a g e n c yto f

u lf ill its sta tu to ryd u ties ” ); B oa rd of Ed

. of O ak P ark v . Ke l l y E. , 2 0 7 F .3 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ n o th in g in th is s ubs ect i on author i zes aw ar ds of fi nanci al r el i ef i n favorof l ocal educa t i onal offi ci al s ”)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second C irc u it w a s re c e n tlyp re se n ted w ith a f a c tu a l se tti n g v irtu a lly i dent i cal t o t hati n t hi s cas e w her e a c ountyagenc yw as att em p ti n g to b ri n g an ac ti o n ag ains t th e S tat e o f N ew Y o rk. In rej ect i ng this at t em pt, the C ou rtreas on ed as fo l l ow s: Si nce Congre s s expr es s l ypr ovi ded a pr i vat e r i ght o f a c t i o n i n f

a v o ro f c e r t a i n g r o u p s , s p e c i f

i c a l l y, an yp artyag g ri ev ed b yp arti cu lar find ing s o r a d e c is io n re n d e re d u n d e r s u b s e c tio n 1 4 1 5 , s ee 20 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (i)(2 )(A ), b u t d id n o t ex p re ss ly pr ovi de a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on i n favorof aW h i l e th e r e i s s o me d i s p u t e a s t o whe th e ra n LEA may 5 cr os s - cl ai m ag ai ns ta s t at e age ncyw her e both ar e s ued bythe p a re n ts, th a t issu e is n o t p re se n ted h e re , a n d w e d o n o t ad d re ss it. Co mp a r e An dr e ws , 880 F. 2d at 1291 ( hol di ng thatan LE A m aynot br i ng an ac t i on agai ns tthe s t at e, butnot i ng that , i n a s ui tbr ought bypar ent s , “i tm aybe thatthe LE A m aydefe nd by assert i ng that th e sta te e d u c a tio n a g e n c yis p rim a rilya n d u lti m a telyre sp o n sib le f o r th e [ ID E A ]’s im p lem e n tatio n ” ); w i th O ak Park, 207 F. 3d at937 ( “[a ] l ocal ed u ca ti onal agenc ythathas r ece i ved i t s s har e of the f e d e ra l ap p ro p ria tio n m u st p ro v id e f o r se rv ice s o u t o f th a t sh a re ; it ca n n o t collect m o re f

rom the s tat e b yw ayo f c o n tr ibu ti o n ).

8 c o u n ty , ed u c a tio n a l ag e n c yo r a n yo th e r e n tity s eeki ng t o chal l enge the l ack of an i nt er agenc y a g re e m e n t re q u ire d b y§ 1 4 1 2 (a )(1 2 ), w e f in d it extr emel yunl i kel ythatC ongr es s i nt ended t o do s o. C ou nty of

W estchest er v. N

ew Y ork , 2 8 6 F
. 3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 (2d C ir
. 2002)
. W e fi nd thi s r eas oni ng both per s uas i ve and c ons i s t ent w i th ourow n pr ece dent
. L aw r ence T ow ns hi p has nei theran e x p r e s s n o ri mp l i e d r i g h to f a c t i o n u n d e rth e I DE A. 5 III . T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.