Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-887_k53m.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Failing all else, Sturgis closes with an appeal to congres-
sional purpose.  Brief for Respondents 22–24.  The school 
district  worries  that  our  understanding  of  §1415(l)  would
frustrate Congress’s wish to route claims about educational 
services  to  administrative  agencies  with  “ ‘special  exper-
tise’ ” in such matters.  Id., at 22.  But “it is . . . our job to
apply faithfully the law Congress has written,” and “ ‘[w]e 
cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Con-
gress’ intent.’ ”  Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 
582 U. S. 79, 89 (2017) (quoting Magwood v. Patterson, 561 
U. S. 320, 334 (2010)).  Even on its own terms, it is unclear 
what  the  school  district’s  argument  proves.    Either  inter-
pretation  of  §1415(l)  operates  to  preclude  some  unex-
hausted  claims.  Under  our  view,  for  example,  a  plaintiff 
who files an ADA action seeking both damages and the sort 
of equitable relief IDEA provides may find his request for 
equitable relief barred or deferred if he has yet to exhaust 
§1415(f) and (g).  Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 
22.  It is “quite mistaken to assume,” too, that any interpre-
tation of a law that does more to advance a statute’s puta-
tive goal “must be the law.”  Henson, 582 U. S., at 89.  Laws 
are the product of “compromise,” and no law “ ‘pursues its 
. . . purpose[s] at all costs.’ ”  Ibid.  And it isn’t exactly diffi-
cult to imagine that a rational Congress might have sought
to temper a demand for administrative exhaustion when a 
plaintiff seeks a remedy IDEA can supply with a rule ex-
cusing  exhaustion  when  a  plaintiff  seeks  a  remedy  IDEA 
cannot provide. 

* 
The parties pose a number of additional questions they
would  like  us  to  answer—including  whether  IDEA’s  ex-
haustion requirement is susceptible to a judge-made futility 
exception and whether the compensatory damages Mr. Pe-
rez seeks in his ADA suit are in fact available under that 
statute.  But today, we have no occasion to address any of