Academic journal article Journal of Law and Education


Academic journal article Journal of Law and Education


Article excerpt

Review Granted, Lower Decision Vacated, and Remanded:

DOCKET NO: 16-1533

NAME: E.F. v. Newport Mesa Unified Sch. Dist.

DATE: 10/2/2017

CITATION: - U.S. -, 86 U.S.L.W. 3126

DECISION BELOW: E.F. v. Newport Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., 684 F. App'x. 629. (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished).

Parents of child with autism brought suit against school district under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act and California disability statutes claiming district failed to provide free appropriate public education. E.F.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) was modified several times from 2009 to 2013 to add new goals or allow for additional support. In 2013, E.F.'s parents requested one on one classroom support. The district refused as they considered the 2 to 1 student-teacher ratio in the classroom to be sufficient. E.F.'s parents disagreed and filed for a due process hearing. The administrative law judge found that the district should have completed an assistive technology assessment sooner and awarded twenty extra individual assistive technology training sessions to E.F., but denied all other claims. E.F.'s parents appealed to district court. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on all claims except the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act claim. After reviewing this claim, the district court upheld the administrative law judge's findings. E.F.'s parents appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. E.F.'s parents requested certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Held: Decision vacated and remanded. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded the case "for further consideration in light of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. " E.F. v. Newport Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., - U.S.-, 86 U.S.L.W. 3126 (2017).

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinion in lower court

DOCKET NO: 17-386

NAME: Salazar v. S. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist.

DATE CERT. DENIED: 10/16/2017

CITATION: - U.S. -, 86 U.S.L.W. 3186

Student brought Title IX suit against school district, alleging he was repeatedly molested by school principal. Based on undisputed facts, a jury awarded Salazar $4,500,000. School district appealed. Held: For the district. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the award, finding that Title IX did not impose liability on the school district when the only district employee with knowledge of the sexual abuse was the perpetrator. Salazar v. S. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F. App'x 853 (5th Cir. 2017) (unpublished), cert denied, - U.S. 86 U.S.L.W. 3186 (2017).

Decisions with published opinion in lower court

DOCKET NO: 16-1405

NAME: De Vries v. Regents ofUniv. of Cal.

DATE CERT. DENIED: 10/2/2017

CITATION: - U.S. -, 86 U.S.L.W. 3139

Taxpayer brought suit seeking judgment that university's polices making undocumented immigrants eligible for education benefits were invalid. In 1996, Congress prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving education benefits as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, but §1621(d) of this statute allowed states to pass laws that would specifically allow undocumented immigrants to receive certain benefits. The California legislature passed three laws allowing qualified undocumented immigrants to receive specific postsecondary educational benefits. As the California Constitution limits the legislature's ability to regulate the University of California system, the Regents of the University of California adopted three policies to allow undocumented immigrants access to the benefits ide_72.tified in the California statutes. De Vries brought suit claiming that the policies were not state laws as defined in section §1621(d). The court found that the policies constituted state laws, but offered De Vries the opportunity to file an amended complaint. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.