Opinion ID: 524050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cases Relied on in the Act

Text: 86 In its deliberations over the Act, Congress relied heavily on two landmark cases, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC), 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa.1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972), which established the principle that exclusion from public education of any handicapped child is unconstitutional. See Senate Report at 6-7 (1975), 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1430, 1431 ([The Act] followed a series of landmark court cases establishing in law the right to education for all handicapped children.... Since those initial decisions in 1971 and 1972 and with similar decisions in 27 states, it is clear today that this 'right to education' is no longer in question.); see also House Report at 3-4 (1975). 87 The court in PARC articulated the thesis that: 88 [A]ll mentally retarded persons are capable of benefitting from a program of education and training; that the greatest number of retarded persons, given such education and training, are capable of achieving self-sufficiency and the remaining few, with such education and training are capable of achieving some degree of self care.... 89 PARC, 343 F.Supp. at 296 (emphasis added). The Consent Agreement for the case, approved by the court, concluded that Pennsylvania may not deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training. Id. at 307 (emphasis added). In Mills, the court held that denying handicapped children a public education was violative of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Mills, 348 F.Supp. at 875. It ordered that the District of Columbia shall provide to each child of school age a free and suitable publicly-supported education regardless of the degree of the child's mental, physical or emotional disability or impairment. Id. at 878 (emphasis added). 90