Opinion ID: 693035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: judicial review in idea cases

Text: 22 As indicated, parents may challenge a school district placement decision through the due process hearing proceeding and subsequent appeal to the state administrative level, followed by further appeal to the federal district court. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2).
23 The Ninth Circuit recently observed that judicial review in IDEA cases differs substantially from judicial review of other agency actions, in which courts generally are confined to the administrative record and are held to a highly deferential standard of review. Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 90, 130 L.Ed.2d 41 (1994). The IDEA specifically requires a district court reviewing a challenge under the IDEA to receive the records of the administrative proceedings, ... hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, grant any appropriate relief. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). Thus, the court does not use the substantial evidence standard typically applied in the review of administrative agency decisions, but instead must decide independently whether the requirements of the IDEA are met. Board of Educ. v. Illinois State Bd., 41 F.3d 1162, 1167 (7th Cir.1994). 24 However, [t]he fact that Sec. 1415(e) requires that the reviewing court 'receive the records of the [state] administrative proceedings' carries with it the implied requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051 (quoting 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2)). The district court must therefore independently review the evidence contained in the administrative record, accept and review additional evidence, if necessary, and make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence, while giving due weight to the administrative proceedings below. This has been described as a modified de novo review, Doe v. Board of Educ., 9 F.3d 455, 458 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2104, 128 L.Ed.2d 665 (1994), or as involved oversight. Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083, 1087 (1st Cir.1993) (quoting Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 989 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 912, 111 S.Ct. 1122, 113 L.Ed.2d 230 (1991)); 11 cf. Teague Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Todd L., 999 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir.1993) (district court's review of the hearing officer's decision is virtually de novo ). 25 In this case, we review the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District. 12 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as did the district court. Johnson, 921 F.2d at 1025. Thus, summary judgment is only appropriately granted if  'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'  Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). We examine the facts and draw any inferences therefrom in favor of the non-moving party. We of course review de novo the district court's interpretation of the statutes at issue. See Dell v. Board of Educ., 32 F.3d 1053, 1058 (7th Cir.1994).