Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-887_k53m.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

read the statute, we agreed to take up the question.  Com-
pare  Perez,  3  F. 4th,  at  241–242;  McMillen  v.  New  Caney 
Independent  School  Dist.,  939  F. 3d  640,  647–648  (CA5
2019),  with  D. D.  ex  rel.  Ingram  v.  Los  Angeles  Unified 
School Dist., 18 F. 4th 1043, 1059–1061 (CA9 2021) (Buma-
tay, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Doucette 
v. Georgetown Public Schools, 936 F. 3d 16, 31 (CA1 2019). 

* 
  Section 1415(l) contains two salient features.  First, the 
statute  sets  forth  this  general  rule:  “Nothing  in  [IDEA]
shall be construed to restrict” the ability of individuals to
seek “remedies” under the ADA or “other Federal laws pro-
tecting the rights of children with disabilities.”  Second, the 
statute offers a qualification, prohibiting certain suits with
this language:  “[E]xcept that before the filing of a civil ac-
tion  under  such  [other  federal]  laws  seeking  relief  that  is 
also available under this subchapter, the procedures under 
subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted.”  In turn, subsec-
tions (f) and (g) provide affected children and their parents 
with the right to a “due process hearing” before a local or 
state administrative official, §1415(f)(1)(A), followed by an
“appeal” to the state education agency, §1415(g)(1).

The  parties  offer  very  different  interpretations  of 
§1415(l).  Mr. Perez reads the statute to require a plaintiff 
to  exhaust  the  administrative  processes  found  in  subsec-
tions (f) and (g) only to the extent he pursues a suit under 
another federal law for remedies IDEA also provides.  None 
of this, Mr. Perez contends, forecloses his current claim be-
cause  his  ADA  complaint  seeks  only  compensatory  dam-
ages, a remedy everyone before us agrees IDEA cannot sup-
ply.    By  contrast,  Sturgis  reads  §1415(l)  as  requiring  a 
plaintiff  to  exhaust  subsections  (f)  and  (g)  before  he  may 
pursue a suit under another federal law if that suit seeks 
relief for the same underlying harm IDEA exists to address. 
On this view, the law bars Mr. Perez’s ADA suit because it