Amicus and Related News

Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. On July 18, 2007, COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. COPAA argued that parents may seek tuition reimbursement under IDEA for a child who has been denied a FAPE but who did not previously receive special education services from the school district. More

John M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Evanston Township. On June 22, 2007, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief in John M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Evanston Township. COPAA argued that a school district may not unilaterally reduce its stay-put obligation to the details expressly specified in the IEP, but must provide all services that are part of the child's then-current placement.  More

Amicus Requests. COPAA welcomes requests for Amicus Briefs for cases that present an issue or issues consistent with our mission statement, have a precedent setting value and affect the educational welfare of school age children with disabilities. More

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy. In March 2006, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in this important case. COPAA explained that parents who prevail in IDEA cases should be reimbursed for expert witness fees. Without such reimbursement, there is no equal access to a public education that is both free and appropriate. Expert witness testimony is vital in IDEA cases, and few parents can afford the thousands of dollars it can cost. COPAA also argued that the legislative history shows that Congress intended parents to recover expert fees as part of their costs. More

Winkelman v. Parma City School District. In December 2006, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case. COPAA urged the Court to find that parents have the right to represent themselves in special education court cases. More

Woods Family. The COPAA Amicus and Governmental Affairs Committees followed closely the Cleveland Bar Association's unauthorized practice of law complaint filed against two parents, Brian and Susan Woods in May 2006. The Bar Association dismissed its complaint. The Woods had been pursuing their own IDEA and related civil rights claims in federal court without a lawyer. COPAA was preparing a letter to the Bar Association and considering filing an amicus in before the Ohio Supreme Court when the news arrived. This case also garnered a favorable editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. More

Schaffer v. Weast. In March 2005, COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court, explaining that the burden of proof in special education cases should appropriately be on the school district. Twelve other organizations signed on to COPAA's brief (PDF, 39 pgs, 2.3MB). In response to the Supreme Court's decision placing the burden on parents, COPAA explains that the decision is likely to cause school districts to undermine the rights of parents and deprive children of free appropriate public educations. School districts have an overwhelming advantage during the IEP process and at due process, and they have much greater resources at their disposal than parents. COPAA's statement is here.

Mr. and Mrs. I v. Maine School Administrative District No. 55: In August 2006, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief in Mr. and Mrs. I v. Maine School Adminsitrative District No. 55, urging the First Circuit to uphold the District Court's finding of eligibility under IDEA for a child with Asperger's Syndrome. A child whose academic performance is adequate, but has substantial social and emotional problems that affect her educational performance, is eligible for services under the IDEA, including social and pragmatic skills training. The IDEA recognizes that the a child may need different kinds of special education services to access an education. These include functional, behavioral, social, and academic needs. COPAA's amicus brief further urged the Court to reject the school district's formulation that a student must demonstrate a "significant negative impairment" on educational performance to qualify under the IDEA. The statute includes no such requirement; nor is it narrowly limited to children who are having academic difficulties.

COPAA's brief was written by Diane Smith of the Disabilities Rights Center of Maine. COPAA joined with co-amici National Disabilities Rights Network, Autism Society of Maine, and the Disability Rights Center of Maine. COPAA has a deep commitment to all children with disabilities, including those who may be progressing academically but need special-education due to a wide-variety of non-academic needs. Read COPAA's amicus brief here (PDF, 36 pgs, 840k). Respondent Mr. and Mrs I's brief, written by COPAA members brief, Richard O'Meara, Amy Sneirson, and Staci Converse is available here (PDF, 71 pgs, 280k). The First Circuit ruled in the parents’ favor in March 2007.  Download the First Circuit’s opinion here:

Board of Education of Montgomery County v. S.G.: In September 2006, COPAA filed an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit in this case involving the IDEA's coverage of all children with disabilities, including those who are making academic progress. S.G. is a 13-year old girl who, due to schizophrenia, was unable to receive meaningful educational benefit in public school. COPAA's brief supported the position of S.G., who was represented by member Mark Martin. The briefs argued that the IDEA requires all children with disabilities to receive a free appropriate public education. A child with a serious emotional disturbance that adversely affect her educational progress is eligible for special-education and related services regardless of her cognitive ability or grades. Hearing voices, hallucinating, and being unable to properly attend or participate in school and classes are hallmarks of an inappropriate education, the briefs noted. Moreover, skewing a child's grades in order to pass her is inappropriate.

COPAA is grateful for the pro bono work of attorney Kristen Perry and the firm of Whiteford, Taylor and Preston, as well as the work of COPAA's amicus committee. The National Disability Rights Network joined COPAA in its amicus brief. COPAA's brief is available here (PDF, 37 pgs, 896k), and S.G.'s brief written by COPAA Member Mark Martin is available here (PDF, 59 pgs, 1.7m). The Fourth Circuit ruled in the parents’ favor in May 2007.  Download the Fourth Circuit opinion here

*PDFs require Acrobat Reader for viewing. If you don't have Acrobat Reader installed on your computer, you can download a copy for free.)