Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  580 U. S. ____ (2017) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 15–827 
_________________ 

ENDREW F., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS

 AND NEXT FRIENDS, JOSEPH F. AND JENNIFER F., 

PETITIONER v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL
 
DISTRICT RE–1
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
 

[March 22, 2017]

 CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered  the  opinion  of  the

Court. 

Thirty-five years ago, this Court held that the Individu-
als with Disabilities Education Act establishes a substan-
tive  right  to  a  “free  appropriate  public  education”  for 
certain  children  with  disabilities.  Board  of  Ed.  of  Hen-
drick  Hudson  Central  School  Dist.,  Westchester  Cty.  v. 
Rowley,  458  U. S.  176  (1982).    We  declined,  however,  to 
endorse  any  one  standard  for  determining  “when  handi-
capped  children  are  receiving  sufficient  educational  bene-
fits  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  Act.”  Id.,  at  202. 
That “more difficult problem” is before us today.  Ibid. 

I 

A 

The  Individuals  with  Disabilities  Education  Act  (IDEA 
or  Act)  offers  States  federal  funds  to  assist  in  educating 
children  with  disabilities.    84  Stat.  175,  as  amended,  20 
U. S. C.  §1400  et seq.;  see  Arlington  Central  School  Dist. 
Bd.  of  Ed.  v.  Murphy,  548  U. S.  291,  295  (2006).    In  ex-