When Jack Robinson lost a major 10th Circuit Court of Appeals special education case interpreting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act a decade ago, the ruling stung him deeply. But last year, he received vindication from the nation’s highest court when it handed down a much different interpretation of the statute. The decision settled decades of division between various circuit courts, overturned the 10th Circuit’s 2008 ruling and has the potential to affect children with special needs throughout the U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District on March 22, 2017, ruling that in order to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, “a school must offer an individualized education plan reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
“One of the things that I really wanted to press for was that notion of, this is Brown v. Board of Education,” Robinson said. “This is a case about equalizing the opportunity of children with disabilities.”
The path to the Supreme Court for Endrew’s case began in 2012, when his family filed a complaint under the IDEA with the Department of Education. His parents had placed him in private school when Endrew, who has autism, did not make meaningful progress after several years under the individualized education plans offered by his public school district. The district seemed to have set arbitrary objectives for him and had not provided progress reports adequate to measure his development. Endrew’s parents sought reimbursement for his private school tuition.
But an administrative law judge cited modified goals and objectives set by the school district as evidence of “at least minimal progress” over several years, an analysis Robinson said “dumbfounded” him.
“Nothing’s guaranteed, but I’d never seen a situation where there’s just not only no progress but the goals and objectives don’t make any sense,” Robinson said. “Plus, there’s indications in these IEPs that Drew’s behavior is declining.”
The question at the heart of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District was how much educational benefit a child with disabilities is entitled to receive under the IDEA.
The act gives children with disabilities the right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) but does not further define what meets that definition. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to review the meaning of a FAPE, Board of Education v. Rowley, had stood as the benchmark interpretation since 1982.
In Rowley, the Supreme Court ruled children with disabilities have a substantive educational right under the IDEA. But the ruling did not further define a standard for a substantive educational right because Rowley did well in school under her individualized education plan. Lower circuit courts have grappled with the issue since. Some have ruled the IDEA requires meaningful educational benefit, while others have ruled it requires only some.
Robinson’s victory in Endrew’s case overturned a 2008 decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Thompson School District v. Luke P., another of Robinson’s cases. Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch applied a “merely more than de minimis” standard in the court’s interpretation of an educational benefit, meaning just some evidence of progress by a child with disabilities met the substantive obligation set by the IDEA.
“I was just personally wounded by that,” Robinson said. “Not only for the family but also just knowing that not only in the 10th Circuit but other circuits [were] going to adopt this standard. Because it really dealt head-on [with] what is a free, appropriate public education. … And he created probably the lowest imaginable standard he could, and I felt responsible for that.”
He said Endrew’s family felt ready to give up after losing their appeal in U.S. District Court, but Robinson convinced them to press forward.
At the 10th Circuit, although the court issued what Robinson felt was a thorough analysis, the court found the previously established de minimis standard constrained it to find that the school district met its obligation for a FAPE.
The case’s high-profile nature led the Department of Justice under then-President Barack Obama to interview Robinson, and the department submitted an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and to overturn the 10th Circuit’s de minimis standard.
The Department of Justice argued the standard did not further the IDEA’s purpose. Robinson said he welcomed the Obama administration’s support after so many defeats in the lower courts and acknowledged having its backing raised the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court would take Endrew’s case.
“They came out so forcefully just about this ‘merely more than de minimis’ standard … I must say, throughout this whole process, that was probably the highlight for me,” he said. “Here there’s this 30-odd year debate as to: ‘Are children with disabilities entitled to really any benefit at all?’ And this was the case that was going to decide it. It’s just amazing.”
In a sensitive case such as Endrew’s, Robinson explained the importance of helping the parents understand how to resolve the case in the best interests of the child.
Endrew’s family attempted to first resolve the issues out of court with the school district because the ultimate goal is to solve the underlying problem, he said.
“I’ve always approached these situations like a marriage without the possibility of divorce,” Robinson said, explaining that because a child will be in the public school district for several years, it’s crucial to find a diplomatic solution if possible, “such that we’re not giving anything away and we’re strongly advocating for the rights of your child, but we’re also not burning bridges.” He added he enjoys the skilled finesse that delicate cases such as Endrew’s require.
After issuing its unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court remanded Endrew’s case to the U.S. District Court, and Judge Lewis Babcock decided the case in his favor under the new standard. The school district could appeal again to the 10th Circuit, though Robinson said he hopes the district will “come to their senses.”
He said he could envision a brief uptick in litigation attempting to further define the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. Also following the ruling, the Department of Education issued guidance for how school districts may need to change their practices to comply.
“Obviously that takes time to play out so that the school district and the parents know where they stand on all this,” Robinson said.
—Julia Cardi