Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007) Jacob WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents legal guardians, Jeff Sandee et al., Petitioners, v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. No. 05-983. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 27, 2007. Decided May 21, *1997 Jean-Claude Andre, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioners. David B. Salmons, the States as amicus curiae, special leave Court, supporting Pierre H. Bergeron, respondent. Counsel Record, Ivey, Smith & Ramirez, Squire, Sanders Dempsey, LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Christina Henagen Peer, Cleveland, *1998 Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion Court. Some four years ago, Mr. Mrs. Winkelman, five children, became involved in lengthy administrative proceedings. They had sought review related to concerns they over whether their youngest child, 6-year-old Jacob, would progress well at Pleasant Valley Elementary School, which is part Parma City School District Parma, Ohio. has autism spectrum disorder covered Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 seq. (2000 ed. Supp. IV). His worked school district develop an individualized education program (IEP), required Act. All concede that Jacob's statutory right contribute this process and, when agreement could not be reached, participate proceedings including what refers "impartial due hearing." 1415(f)(1)(A) ed., The disagreement center current dispute procedures followed dissatisfied outcome hearing, seek further question parents, either on own behalf representatives may proceed court unrepresented counsel though are trained licensed attorneys. Resolution issue requires us examine explain provisions IDEA determine if it accords rights can vindicated proceedings, alternatively, allows them, status represent child I Respondent District, participant IDEA's educational spending program, accepts federal funds assistance children disabilities. As condition receiving funds, must comply mandates. provide "free appropriate public education," operate accordance IEP along officials other individuals, members "IEP Team." Brief Petitioners 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). proposed 2003-2004 year have placed elementary school. Regarding deficient under IDEA, nonlawyer availed themselves provided IDEA. filed complaint alleging respondent failed free education; appealed hearing officer's rejection claims state-level officer; after losing appeal filed, Northern In reliance upon 1415(i)(2) IV) challenged decision, alleging, among matters: been was inadequate; follow mandated Pending resolution these challenges, Winkelmans enrolled private expense. also obtained assist them certain aspects although complaint, later appeal, without aid attorney. *1999 Winkelmans' reversal reimbursement private-school expenditures attorney's fees already incurred, appears, declaratory relief. granted respondent's motion judgment pleadings, finding education. proceeding counsel, Appeals Sixth Circuit. Relying its recent decision Cavanaugh Cardinal Local Dist., 409 F.3d 753 (2005), entered order dismissing unless Jacob. See Order 05-3886 (Nov. 4, 2005), App. A Pet. Cert. 1a. rejected proposition raising pro se court. ruled "belongs alone," F.3d, 757, both child. It followed, held, "any [parents] derivative" child's right, ibid., so bringing were appearing behalf, ibid. 28 1654 (allowing parties prosecute se). parents' alternative argument, cannot litigate because does abrogate common-law rule prohibiting from representing minor children. 756. acknowledged, brought Circuit direct conflict First Circuit, concluded, theory "statutory joint rights," assert behalf. Maroni Pemi-Baker Regional 346 247, 249, 250 (C.A.1 2003). light Courts parent disability actions court, we certiorari. 549 U.S. ___, 1209, 166 L. Ed. 2d 1012 (2006). Compare Cavanaugh, supra, Maroni, supra; see Mosely Board Chicago, 434 527 (C.A.7 2006); Collinsgru Palmyra Bd. Ed., 161 225 (C.A.3 1998); Wenger Canastota Central 146 123 (C.A.2 1998) (per curiam); Devine Indian River Cty. Bd., 121 576 (C.A.11 1997). II Our case turns significance interlocking provisions. Petitioners' primary makes real interest actions, "mer[e] guardians children's rights." 16. If correct, Winkelman back into there no party her interests counsel. ("In all courts plead conduct cases personally ..."). cite specific provision mandating explicit terms interest. instead base argument comprehensive reading Taken whole, contend, leads necessary conclusion independent, enforceable rights. 14 (citing Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. Nigh, 543 50, 60, 125 S.Ct. *2000 460, 160 389 (2004)). Respondent, accusing petitioners "knit[ting] together various pulled crevices statute" support claims, 19, reads text mean any redressable belong only id., 19-40. We agree resolves presented. recognize, addition, proper interpretation consideration entire scheme. Dolan Postal Service, 546 481, 486, 126 1252, 163 1079 Turning version governs case, begin overview relevant goals include "ensur[ing] disabilities available education" such protected." §§ 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B) To end, includes governing areas particular relevance claim: developing IEP; criteria sufficiency child; mechanisms made objections proceedings; requirement circumstances reimburse expenses. generally 1412(a)(10), 1414, 1415. Although our discussion identify illustrative provisions, do take note mandate otherwise describe parental involvement. districts each disability, 1412(a)(4), 1414(d), playing "a significant role" process, Schaffer Weast, 49, 53, 528, 387 (2005). Parents serve team develops IEP. 1414(d)(1)(B). "concerns" "for enhancing child" considered team. 1414(d)(3)(A)(ii). additional protections apply throughout process. See, e.g., 1414(d)(4)(A) (requiring Team revise address information parents); 1414(e) "ensure [a disability] group decisions placement child"). statute sets up general procedural safeguards protect informed involvement development 1415(a) "establish maintain ... ensure guaranteed respect education"); 1415(b)(1) (mandating opportunity records). central purpose facilitate "`free education,'" 1401(9), "in conformity [IEP]," 1401(9)(D). defines pursuant instruction "specially designed... meet unique needs disability," 1401(29), coupled "`related services'" *2001 "required benefit [that instruction]," 1401(26)(A). 1401(9). must, things, "under supervision direction," "meet standards State agency," "include preschool, school, secondary involved." Ibid. "no cost parents." 1401(29). Hendrick Hudson Westchester Rowley, 458 176, 102 3034, 73 690 (1982) (discussing meaning used precursor IDEA). When objects adequacy provided, construction IEP, some matter, provides recourse: "[a]n present matter relating identification, evaluation, child." 1415(b)(6). By presenting able pursue that, relevant, begins preliminary meeting "where discuss complaint" local agency "is [reach resolution]." 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(IV). "has resolved satisfaction within 30 days," 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii), request hearing," 1415(f)(1)(A), conducted state agency, where officer will resolve issues raised 1415(f)(3). conducting hearings. Among indicates "shall substantive grounds based determination received "[i]n matters violation," find "did receive violation "(I) impeded "(II) significantly decisionmaking regarding "(III) caused deprivation benefits." 1415(f)(3)(E)(i)-(ii). rather than conducts then aggrieved findings rendered agency." 1415(g)(1). Once reached commence suit court: "Any [by officer] shall bring civil action complaint." 1415(i)(2)(A); 1415(i)(1). finally, least two means recovery inform analysis. First, require "to [of [private school] enrollment finds 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). Second, forth rules extent *2002 award fees. 1415(i)(3)(B). Included section allowing prevailing who disability." 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). B construe accord agree. enjoy stage, inconsistent scheme bar continuing resolving disputes manner Act's express terms, contemplates complaints. addition cited, refer 1415(b)(8) "develop model form filing complaint"); 1415(c)(2) (addressing response "parent's notice"); 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) (referring "the parent's complaint"). wide range available: Administrative complaints education." 1415(b)(6)(A). Claims impartial hearings, where, again, clear participating parties. 2001. 1415(f)(3)(C) (indicating "[a] hearing" period time); 1415(e)(2)(A)(ii) hearing"). grants "[a]ny 1415(i)(2)(A). Nothing excludes exercised protection moment end. Put another way, sub silentio implication seeking vindicate accorded once time comes file action. Through expansive extensive involvement, just opposite result. resisting line analysis, asks read contemplating interests. view nothing more "collateral tools underlying  freestanding independently 25. This interpretation, though, foreclosed statute. one purposes 1400(d)(1)(B). word "rights" quoted language grammatical structure make sense. Further confirm view. mandates agencies establish 1415(a). presumes how might transfer "rights parents" 1415(m)(1)(B), *2003 prohibits challenges "[n]otwithstanding individual student [the IDEA]," 1401(10)(E), 1412(a)(14)(E). adopt (and others) far too strained correct. Defending countertextual statute, cites concluding "references best understood accommodations fact incapacity." Doe Baltimore Cty., 165 260, 263 (C.A.4 30. This, according respondent, interpret references referring implicit which, view, Even inclined ignore plain considering theory, disagree sole driving vindication novel say recognized upbringing Pierce Society Sisters, 268 510, 534-535, 45 571, 69 1070 (1925) (acknowledging liberty control"); Meyer Nebraska, 262 390, 399-401, 43 625, 67 1042 (1923). There obstacle law, then, intention Congress grant stake entitlements created Without personal fulfilling "our national policy ensuring equality opportunity, full participation, independent living, economic self-sufficiency individuals disabilities." 1400(c)(1). therefore reason notion concerning statute's say: conveying variation persuaded Appeals. while "party aggrieved" he she IDEA-based challenges. Under causes relate, example, mandates, see, Collinsgru, 233, demands, proceeds follows: Because is, definition, entitled remedy, are, reimbursements remedies, regard claim implicating limited matters. contradicted recited. True, stating reimbursements; but prevents placing much weight implications drawn less language. little inference excluded whenever mentioned, vice versa. Compare, 1411(e)(3)(E) (barring using *2004 costs associated "brought failing acknowledge parent) "prevailing disability" party). more, confirming reimbursement-related enforce most fundamental Act: disability. consider structure. entitle implementation formulation program. Team, members, account formulates turn, boundaries entitlement IDEA: education'" empowers broad issues. "received 1415(f)(3)(E). decision" agency. Judicial follows, authorized broadly worded phrased same prior stage review: action." These structure, creates implicated made. conclude differentiate, isolated between parents. consequence, matter" relate procedure recovery. collaborative framework system established Cf. Cedar Rapids Community Dist. Garret F., 526 66, 73, 119 992, 143 154 (1999) (looking "overall scheme" provisions). confirmed noting incongruous results accept nonsubstantive intertwined 1415(f)(3)(E), 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii), difficult *2005 disentangle adhere others not. Were nevertheless recognize distinction sort impose confusing onerous regime, worsened absence guidance practice differentiate out design prove inadequacy predicate obtaining, yet prevent obtaining demonstrated one. all, litigation. set distinctions, decline infer them. bifurcated regime suggested employed it, moreover, leaves remedy. requires, "at expense," 1401(9)(A), specially designed parents," courts, conclude, countervailing ability dependant rights, whose disabled recourse circumstances: happens employed; incur, expenses creating reimbursement. Otherwise regarded cause bring; result, potential injustice result apparent. What indicate adequate intended mandate. takes pains 1415(e)(2) implement education); mediation "used deny delay afforded subchapter"); cf. 1400(c)(3) (noting success "ensuring families access education"). matters, encompass C contends, even reasoning now explained prevail *2006 overcoming difficulty. Citing Arlington Murphy, 548 2455, (2006), argues statutes passed Spending Clause, "`clear notice'" before burden new condition, obligation, liability. 41. contends best, ambiguous notice 40-49. Respondent's misplaced. addressed experts' actions. "[W]hen attaches conditions State's acceptance funds," explained, `unambiguously.'" U.S., S.Ct., 2459 (quoting Pennhurst Hospital Halderman, 451 1, 17, 101 1531, 694 (1981)). answered Arlington, therefore, "furnishes liability issue." 2459. found did instant presents different issue, invoke rule. obligation law observe. basic measure monetary recovery, expanded recognizing repose us, Clause force: distinct class people change States' obligations. But here. ruling will, practical increase borne forced defend against suits unconstrained attorneys ethics. Effects suffice Clause. Furthermore, afford relief cases. presented "complaint subsequent improper purpose, harass, unnecessary delay, needlessly litigation." 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III). proceeded standards. III erred dismissed lack IDEA; consistent fully social traditions. beyond relationship sufficient legally cognizable one's effective strengthening role responsibility meaningful opportunities *2007 home." 1400(c)(5). holding need reach petitioners' entitles se. reversed, remanded opinion. ordered. SCALIA, whom THOMAS joins, concurring dissenting part. hold (IDEA), IV), redress violations judicial (or FAPE) substantively inadequate. Whether lawyer depends interaction Judiciary 1789. latter, codified 1654, counsel." (Emphasis added.) right-to-sue provision, 1415(i)(2)(A) [administrative] Thus, "parties "parties" sue behalf.[1] agree, Tr. Oral Arg. 7; 37, remedy; esp., personal, pecuniary, property adversely affected person's court's decree judgment," Black's Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed.2004); ante, 2003-2004. thus concomitant remedies Only properly viewed aggrieved," capable here, types rights.[2] *2008 [school district] "if 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) (emphasis added). variety protections, during 1414(d)(1)(B)(i) (parents team); records meetings), 1415(b)(6), (8) complaints). object 1415(b)(6)(A), infractions, 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii). themselves, those infringed, accordingly them.[3] goes further, however, violations, challenge FAPE act every case. 2003-2006. my sweeps allows. Out sprawling single FAPE. readily understandable: obviously inheres receives instructs, ...." 1412(a)(1)(A) replete belongs 1400(d)(1)(A) (IDEA 1408(a)(2)(C)(i) "receive 1411(e)(3)(F)(i) (same); 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) "that responsible making child"); 1415(b)(6)(A) [a] doubt seeing difference right. itself.[4] *2009 concedes, gives supposed itself. Ante, obvious conferral discrete respectively, accident confer parent-designated children-designated believes, [this] implicatio[n]." That error. statute," undermines "implication" Congress's relies structure," 2004, myriad guarantees guarantees, help shape contours simply giving Nor sensibly rely hearings appeals, complaint," 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) 1415(i)(2)(A), turn FAPE, except concede: level. 17-18, 40; Amicus Curiae 12; 13, 44; 225, 232 1998). power, since acting well. tells whatever about are.[5] Court's spraying sections like buckshot create none exists. Harkening earlier "text structure" (by protections), announces startling *2010 fact, "IDEA 2004. so, spared painful effort craft distinctive scattered course so. quite clearly differentiates Emery Roanoke 432 294, 299 2005) ("[P]arents entities IDEA" omitted)). amici "Congress specifically indicated separate Senator Edward M. Kennedy al. Amici 18. Does seriously contend reimbursement, definitively enroll enrollment"? added); 21 ("The runs parents"). believe 1414(d)(1)(C)(i)-(iii) power excuse member attending meeting? remotely envision communal "family" believes suitability alleged, 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii), "out design" "prevent 2004-2005. total non sequitur. demonstrate says possess insists "most Act." Undoubtedly sheds to, hence phrase job language, run it. administer. fail why Before today, majority Federal allowed denial 527, 532 233; 123, 576, 581, n. 17 points evidence suggesting confusion practice. could, easily administrable distinctions entitlements. Finally, charges approach taken perpetrate "injustice," 2005, allege "without remedy," That, course, true. remedy *2011 rights: suit, represented indulging perception unfair allow se, Congress, structured has, aggrieved." And good reasons done Pro burdens lower defendants, schools hire lawyers. Since prosecuted essentially free, screening knowledgeable attorneys, likely unmeritorious. figure plaintiff's time-consuming. categories permitted reduced. Actions frivolous, many willing lay money solid ordinarily disposed intensive record-review characterizes challenging * alleged requested declaration 1998-1999. first third. NOTES [1] notes, 1998, 2006-2007, argue nonetheless retaining lawyer. Both sides common prohibited manifestation nonattorneys another. 37; 9-10; also, suggests departure [2] clear, basis decide Clause's "clear notice" applicable 2459, [3] Of Article III, standing having concrete pertains, Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 571-578, 112 2130, 351 (1992), here [4] justified, attempts, 2004-2005, schooling acquire (in circumstances) institution. [5] Contrary indications opinion, apparent always render "on 1415(f)(3)(E)(i) "[s]ubject clause (ii)," violation" inadequacies child," 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)(II). true allegation nominally label attached defect. me point. 31, 23. 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii) ("Nothing subparagraph construed preclude ordering requirements section"). event, feature still clue

Classification Label: 1