Court
spells out burden of proof in school
cases
Tuesday, November 15, 2005 • BY
GINA HOLLAND • Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled
yesterday that parents who demand better special education
programs for their children have the burden of proof in the
challenges.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,
writing for the 6-2 court, said that when parents challenge
a program, they have the burden in an administrative hearing
of showing that the program is insufficient. If schools
bring a complaint, the burden rests with them, O'Connor
wrote.
The ruling is a loss for a Maryland
family that contested the special education program designed
for their son, who has attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder.
The case required the court to interpret
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which does
not specifically say whether parents or schools have the
burden of proof in disputes. The law covers more than 6
million students.
The Maryland family in the Supreme Court
case had argued that when there are disagreements between
schools and parents, education officials have better access
to relevant facts and witnesses.
The Bush administration backed the
Montgomery County, Md., school district, which maintained
that the extra requirement would be expensive for local
schools.
Chief Justice John Roberts had recused
himself from the case, because attorneys from his old law
firm represented the school district in suburban
Washington.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer wrote separate dissents.
"School districts are charged with
responsibility to offer to each disabled child an
individualized education program (IEP) suitable to the
child's special needs. The proponent of the IEP, it seems to
me, is properly called upon to demonstrate its adequacy,"
Ginsburg wrote.
O'Connor said the court was not ruling on
a separate issue, whether states could set their own
policies and put the burden on school officials.
The case is Schaffer v. Weast,
04-698.
In other action yesterday, the Supreme
Court:
- Refused to review Florida's lifetime
ban on voting rights for convicted felons, a case that
would have had national implications for millions of
would-be voters. Justices declined to hear a challenge to
Florida's 19th-century ban, which applies to inmates and
those who have served their time and been released.
Felons are kept from voting in every state but Maine and
Vermont, although restrictions vary.
- Sidestepped a dispute over the
constitutionality of putting "In God We Trust" on
government buildings. The court did not comment in
rejecting an appeal by two attorneys over an inscription
on the Davidson County Government Center in Lexington,
N.C. The decision lets stand a lower court ruling that
favored the county.
- Agreed to consider reinstating rules
that keep newspapers and magazines out of the hands of
disruptive Pennsylvania inmates, a case that court
nominee Samuel Alito dealt with. A panel of the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with inmates who
claimed the ban on most reading material and personal
photographs violated their free speech rights. Alito, one
of the lower court judges in the case, filed a dissent
and argued that the state should be allowed to withhold
the news.
- Dismissed a case that would have
spelled out what police should do when suspects demand to
see an attorney, but then talk anyway. The court had
heard arguments earlier this month in the appeal,
involving questioning of a Maryland teenager about a
murder. Maryland had lost in a lower court, and
yesterday's action leaves that decision in
place.
- Said they would clarify when federal
courts have jurisdiction in prisoner lawsuits, using the
case of a California inmate punished for alleged
inappropriate activity with volunteer Catholic
priests.
© 2005 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with
permission.
|