Source: https://www.copaa.org/general/custom.asp?page=Amicus&DGPCrSrt=13A&DGPCrPg=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:47:50+00:00

Document:
Amicus Briefs - Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.
COPAA is a leader in shaping the body of case law protecting and enforcing the rights of students with disabilities and their families.
Our Amicus Committee provides technical assistance to members and files briefs in cases of national significance. The issues for amicus are issues affecting all children with disabilities and topics of the briefs are varied. Recent topics include the requirement to identify and evaluate all children in all areas of suspected disability; to the constitutional protections and right to be free from physical restraints in schools; and, the three separate and distinct rights and protections offered to all students with disabilities in schools under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA.
3) affect the educational welfare of students with disabilities.
Click here for instructions on how to submit request for Amicus or Technical Assistance.
This collection included Amicus Briefs written by or for the COPAA Amicus Committee. Also includes ruling, opinions, and Briefs that COPAA signed onto authored by other organizations.
COPAA previously filed a brief in this matter pending before the Ninth Circuit (see below). On November 1, 2011 the District Court ruled in favor of parents, upholding the Hearing Officer’s determination that the school district did not satisfy the Rowley “meaningful benefit” standard when it utilized an outdated IEP. The court also concluded that the District Court made a legal error when it concluded that the parents’ vigorous advocacy for their child excused the district’s inappropriate IEP. (see below) Understanding the importance of this ruling to other cases, COPAA and its Amicus partner filed a Motion asking the Ninth Circuit to publish its decision in this matter. On July 19, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted that motion and issued a new opinion in Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. that was substantially more complete than the original; relying heavily on the arguments presented in COPAA’s brief.
Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. , COPAA previously filed a brief in this matter pending before the Ninth Circuit (see below). On November 1, 2011 the District Court ruled in favor of parents, upholding the Hearing Officer’s determination that the school district did not satisfy the Rowley “meaningful benefit” standard when it utilized an outdated IEP. The court also concluded that the District Court made a legal error when it concluded that the parents’ vigorous advocacy for their child excused the district’s inappropriate IEP.
Case No. 09-cv-00858-WJM-MEH): COPAA filed an amicus brief in this case in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a student who was regularly restrained in a wrap-around desk. COPAA argued the use of this restraint desk with Ebonie S. was unacceptable under all but emergency circumstances because it served no pedagogical purpose and failed to meet any accepted professional standards. Further, Defendants’ frequent restraint of Ebonie S. using a wraparound desk with restraint bar deprived her of her fundamental right to liberty and freedom from physical restraint in violation of her Constitutional right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, the district court had erred in comparing Ebonie S. to other children with disabilities rather than all students for purposes of its equal protection analysis. Baker & McKenzie pro bono attorneys drafted the amicus brief. Leslie Seid Margolis, Andrew Feinstein, Catherine Merino Reisman reviewed.
COPAA filed an amicus brief on least restrictive environment issues in a case pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Larry Berger of Shephard, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP drafted the brief on behalf of COPAA. Selene Almazan and Catherine Reisman assisted in the drafting.
COPAA filed amicus curiae in addressing the issue of deference due to the Impartial Hearing Officer and the second tier, State Review Officer, in New York. COPAA member JesseCutler represented the students involved. Pro bono counsel from Greenberg Traurig, Caroline Heller, authored this brief for COPAA. Committee members Alice Nelson, Andy Feinstein, Selene Almazan, and Catherine Reisman assisted in the drafting.
The trial court dismissed claims arising from a Jonathan King’s suicide by hanging in a barred seclusion cell at an isolated center for students with severe emotional disorders.COPAA argued (1) Jonathan had a right as a student to a safe educational setting and the Defendants had a duty to keep him free from harm; (2) Georgia has not authorized the use of seclusion in public schools, making Defendants’ practice illegal; (3) Jonathan’s seclusion without safeguards was “confinement” and created a known danger for which the defendants should be liable under federal law; (4) Under IDEA and Georgia law, the State Defendants have clear legal responsibilities to Jonathan; and (5) The seclusion practices were below the minimal standards of the profession and shocking in disregard of basic safeguards. Thanks to COPAA Members Jon Zimring and Dawn R. Smith for writing brief. The Atlanta Legal Aid Society, National Disability Rights Network, and TASH signed on.
On October 20, 2011, COPAA filed this brief on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by Attorneys Gary Mayerson and Tracey Walsh. Caroline Heller of Greenberg Traurig, LLP wrote the brief, which argued: 1) The IEP is the centerpiece of the IDEA and provides an educational delivery system of which the parents must have written notice; 2) The IEP is legally enforceable as written, to be judged within the four corners of the written document, not a malleable document to be altered to demonstrate the offering of FAPE at a hearing; 3) Staffing ratio is part and parcel of the placement and an essential part of the determination of whether the IEP provides FAPE, not educational methodology solely within the discretion of the school district; and 4) Where a student has behaviors that interfere with his ability to receive an appropriate education, the district is compelled to perform a functional behavior analysis prior to proposing behavioral interventions and to proposing an IEP.
COPAA assisted NDRN, Professor Joseph Tulman of the University of DC Law School, Morrison & Forster, and other advocates on this brief. M. Johnson is IDEA-eligible. DC sentencing law obligates a judge at sentencing to: ensure community safety and the educational needs of the defendant; designate facility to place defendant. At sentencing in two felony cases, Johnson’s counsel argued the sentencing judges were obligated to ensure that he would be incarcerated in a facility where he could receive appropriate special education services. Under the 1997 D.C. Revitalization Act, D.C. inmates charged and convicted of felonies are uniformly placed in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which does not consider itself bound by the requirements of the IDEA. The brief argued that the court should rehear the case to give meaning to requirements of DC sentencing law. COPAA members, Catherine Merino Reisman and Judith Gran wrote the brief for amici. Andrew Feinstein and Selene Almazan reviewed.
On July 1, 2011 COPAA filed an amicus brief in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. COPAA asserts that the Secretary of Education’s regulation excluding “mapping” of cochlear implants from the scope of “related services” is contrary to the IDEA’s unambiguous definition of “related services.” The text of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), expressly defines the term “related services,” and does so expansively. The statute provides that all services that are “developmental, corrective, or . . . supportive,” are “related,” so long as such services are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education and are not performed by a physician (except when performed for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. Many thanks to Morrison & Foerster, LLP in Washington, D.C. for writing this brief for COPAA on a pro bono basis. Andrew Feinstein, Alice Nelson, Bob Berlow, Leslie Seid Margolis, Bruce Goldstein, and Selene Almazan reviewewd.
COPAA signed onto brief with Disability Rights Education Defense Fund (DREDF), Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and Disability Rights California, addressing whether the district court properly granted a school district’s motion to evade the requirements of stay-put by discontinuing the use of a private provider. The district court relied on narrow exceptions to stay-put, which the district court inflated to swallow the rule: (1) an exception regarding placements that are “temporary,” which the district court extended to define placements subject to review after one year, and (2) an exception on the basis that certain changes involving the provider do not change the educational placement, which the district court extended to hold that any change involving the provider does not fall within the meaning of changes to the “current educational placement” under section 1415(j). The brief was written by Anna Levine from DRA. Andrew Feinstein and Selene Almazan reviewed.
COPAA filed amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the student and her parents are represented by COPAA member Maureen Graves. Selene Almazan, who agreed to represent COPAA pro bono, authored an excellent brief outlining the legal and research basis for education in the least restrictive environment. Alice Nelson, Mark Martin, Andy Feinstein, Leslie Margolis, and Catherine Reisman assisted in the drafting.
A.M. v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist. - On December 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. On the issue briefed by COPAA, the court agreed with our arguments, holding “Neither the IDEA claim nor the Section 504 claim was mooted by A.M.’s death because the parents sought reimbursement and damages.” The panel remanded to see if the issue of damages had been waived by failure to present it at the administrative level. In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Bennett disagreed that a remand was necessary but agreed with the conclusion on mootness. Judge Bennett specifically cited to COPAA’s brief, stating: “I also concur in the majority’s conclusion that neither the IDEA claim nor the Section 504 claim was mooted by A.M.’s death, because the parents sought reimbursement and damages, so that the district court’s award of attorney fees on the ground that the parents’ separate claims were mooted was improper,"
COPAA filed amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. COPAA member JesseCutler represented the students involved. The amicus brief discusses the appropriate standard of review in an appeal of a case brought under IDEA. Caroline Heller of Greenberg Traurig LLP authored this brief for COPAA. Selene Almazan, Andrew Feinstein, Alice Nelson and Catherine Reisman assisted in the drafting.
COPAA and the Education Law Center filed an amicus brief addressing the research basis for LRE requirements in. A.G. v. Wissahickon Sch. Dist. case in the Third Circuit. The brief addresses the particular importance of providing education to all children – including children with disabilities – in the least restrictive environment, so as to promote independence and self-sufficiency. In the Brief, COPAA and ELC provide to the Court some of the extensive empirical research which demonstrates the importance and efficacy of providing education to children with disabilities in the general education classroom. Special thanks to Larry Berger of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP for drafting and filing the brief.
COPAA filed an amicus brief in T.W. v. Seminole County in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In T.W., the trial court dismissed the claims of a student with autism spectrum disorder and his mother. In that case, COPAA argued that the teacher’s abuse of restraint techniques on students with disabilities violated prevailing professional standards and created a substantial risk of harm. Our thanks to COPAA Member Craig Goodmark of Atlanta Legal Aid Society, who wrote the brief on behalf of COPAA. The Atlanta Legal Aid Society, the Georgia Advocacy Office, TASH, the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, and the National Disabilities Rights Network signed onto the amicus brief in support of T.W.
COPAA joined several other organizations today in filing an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust. The brief emphasized the policy reasons in federal law for affirming the district court decision that creation of digital copies of copyrighted works in nonprofit university libraries constituted fair use of the works under 17 U.S.C.S. § 107 since the use for scholarship and research was transformative with purposes of superior search capabilities rather than actual access to the copyrighted works, and facilitating access for print-disabled persons. Jo Anne Simon of Jo Anne Simon, P.C., with the help of Mary J. Goodwin and Amy F. Robertson, authored the brief. COPAA Amicus Committee members Leslie Margolis, Victoria Sulerzyski and Selene Almazan assisted with revisions.
COPAA signed on to the amicus brief in LSAC v State of California, supporting the position that a California anti-discrimination law should be upheld. AB 2122 prohibits the LSAC (the entity that administers the law school admission test) from disclosing to law schools, the identity of test-takers who receive testing accommodations. The brief argues that the legislature’s enactment of AB 2122 to advance disability diversity in the legal profession is constitutional under the rational basis test, that the legal profession has a legitimate interest in promoting diversity in the legal profession, that legislation regulating the LSAT is rationally related to that legitimate purpose, and that the legislature’s exercise of its ability to regulate professions did not violate the LSAC’s equal protection rights.
COPAA joined a number of other organizations in filing an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Rawdin v. American Board of Pediatrics. In Rawdin, a pediatrician was denied appropriate accommodations on medical board exams for his learning disability. In the amicus brief, amici argue that the district court relied on case law and reasoning that Congress specifically rejected in enacting the ADA Amendments Act in 2008; that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that Dr. Rawdin did not have a disability; and that the district court improperly granted a testing entity deference that is accorded to educational institutions.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the members of the HathiTrust Digital Library can “create a full-text searchable database of copyrighted works and provide those works in formats accessible to those with disabilities.” Digitizing copyrighted works for the purpose of creating a full-text searchable database is not copyright infringement, because it is a “fair use” of those works that is protected by copyright law.
Providing individuals with print disabilities full digital access to those copyrighted works — text and images — is also “fair use” under the Copyright Act and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Second Circuit also referenced Congress’ intent in the Americans with Disabilities Act to “‘assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency’” for individuals with disabilities.
September 4, 2014 - the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a great precedential opinion favoring families' rights to seek relief for non-educational injuries and to enforce settlement agreements in the case F.H. et. al. v. Memphis City School (6th Cir, 2013). In December of 2013 COPAA filed amici in this case of along with the Disability Law and Advocacy Center of Tennessee, The Arc Tennessee, the Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services, Support and Training for Exceptional Parents, Tennessee Voices for Children, Inc., and People First of Tennessee.
that Appellant has focused on such claims, Amicus address the reversal of the District Court’s summary rejection of the Section 504 claims and the related reasons for reversal of the denial of the ADA claims.
COPAA filed an Amicus Brief on December 22, 2014 in the DC Circuit, Price et. al. v. D.C.. In 2002, the DC Superior Court issued an Administrative Order establishing a system for appointing special education lawyers to represent the parents of indigent children who find themselves before the family court in delinquency or neglect proceedings, and who may be eligible for services under the IDEA. Lawyers appointed under the program are entitled to compensation at the rate of $90 per hour depending on the nature of the proceeding that brings the child before the Superior Court. Regardless of the plan under which the special education attorney is appointed, the appointment orders provide that the lawyer will be compensated by the Superior Court if attorneys’ fees cannot be recovered from DCPS. The Superior Court’s system for appointing counsel to represent indigent parents and children in IDEA cases addresses some of the structural impediments to private enforcement of the IDEA.
4th Circuit, John Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George's County - On December 17, 2014 the 4th Circuit accepted COPAA's Amicus brief in the case John Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George's County. In a tragic case of a student's peer on peer sexual assaults , the District Court’s overly-narrow interpretation of the deliberate indifference standard under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”) disregarded established precedent, and frustrated the important national interest of providing safe schools for all students and eliminating discrimination and bullying in our nation’s schools. COPAA argued that a school district cannot escape liability merely by responding, notwithstanding the likelihood that the response will not be effective. In considering the circumstances, COPAA argued that courts appropriately consider Agency guidance and research on what practices are likely to combat bullying.
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 4th Circuit, April 15, 2015. The case, S.T. v. Howard County Public Schools, presents an issue of profound importance to COPAA and its members because it invokes the parents’ rights to notice and meaningful participation. At the time the parents must choose whether to accept a school district’s offered program and school placement, or to place the child elsewhere and seek tuition payment, parents only have the information provided by the school system at the IEP meeting to rely upon.
The D.C. Court of Appeals issued a decision on June 25th, Price v. DC, affirming the rights of families to secure counsel. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed with the parent and COPAA’s Amicus positions and determined that the fee shifting provisions apply to court appointed attorneys in the D.C. Superior Court system and payment through the court appointed panel does not bar attorneys from utilizing the fee shifting statute at a prevailing rate for representation on behalf of families who otherwise could not afford to retain counsel.
COPAA filed an amicus brief in support of Appellees' Petition for a ReHearing En Banc in the case: Meridian Joint School District v. D.A. Meridian was issued by the 9th Circuit on July 6th. Since that time, COPAA has been concerned about the ruling. The parents prevailed in their request for an IEE; after the IEE was completed the IEP team determined that MA was not a student with a disability. (COPAA filed an amicus brief in the companion case) On the issue of attorneys fees for the IEE "win" the Panel ruled that because the 2012 due process hearing (which arose two years after the IEE matter) found that M.A. was then ineligible (as of February 2012) for an IEP, his parents were ineligible for fees on the 2010 matter, theorizing they were not the “parent of a child with a disability.” Courts must construe civil rights statutes broadly so as to effectuate the statutory goals.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 107
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1681
 v. 
 v. 
 v.