Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-887_k53m.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

LUNA PEREZ v. STURGIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–887.  Argued January 18, 2023—Decided March 21, 2023 

Petitioner  Miguel  Luna  Perez,  who  is  deaf,  attended  schools  in  Michi-
gan’s Sturgis Public School District (Sturgis) from ages 9 through 20.
When Sturgis announced that it would not permit Mr. Perez to gradu-
ate, he and his family filed an administrative complaint with the Mich-
igan Department of Education alleging (among other things) that Stur-
gis  failed  to  provide  him  a  free  and  appropriate  public  education  as 
required  by  the  Individuals  with  Disabilities  Education  Act  (IDEA).
See 20 U. S. C. §1415.  They claimed that Sturgis supplied Mr. Perez 
with unqualified interpreters and misrepresented his educational pro-
gress.  The parties reached a settlement in which Sturgis promised to
provide  the  forward-looking  relief  Mr.  Perez  sought,  including  addi-
tional schooling.  Mr. Perez then sued in federal district court under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeking compensatory dam-
ages.  Sturgis moved to dismiss.  It claimed that 20 U. S. C. §1415(l)
barred Mr. Perez from bringing his ADA claim because it requires a 
plaintiff “seeking relief that is also available under” IDEA to first ex-
haust  IDEA’s  administrative  procedures.  The  district  court  agreed
and dismissed the suit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not preclude Mr. Perez’s ADA 
lawsuit because the relief he seeks (i.e., compensatory damages) is not 
something IDEA can provide.  Pp. 3–8.

(a) Section §1415(l) contains two features.  The first clause focuses 
on  “remedies”  and  sets  forth  this  general  rule:    “Nothing  [in  IDEA]
shall  be  construed  to  restrict”  the  ability  to  seek  “remedies”  under
“other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities.”
The second clause carves out an exception:  Before filing a civil action 
under other federal laws “seeking relief that is also available” under 
IDEA,  “the  procedures  under  [§1415](f)  and  (g)  shall  be  exhausted.”