Forest Grove v. T.A. (2009)

By Andrew Dawson

Overview

In Forest Grove v. T.A. (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement for private specialized education for individuals where their public school fails to provide a “Free Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE). In order to qualify for reimbursement from IDEA, the private school placement must be appropriate. Further, this case establishes individuals can qualify for reimbursement regardless of whether they previously received specialized education services and/or voluntarily withdrew from their public school (Oyez).

Summary

T.A. (the plaintiff) attended public school in the Forest Grove School District (the respondent) in Oregon from kindergarten through the winter of his junior year of high school. Throughout T.A.’s educational career, teachers had observed difficulties with his attention and completion of assignments. These issues were amplified during his high school years (Justia Law).

In 2000, during his freshman year of high school, his parents attempted to intervene with the school counselor, who examined his school records and administered cognitive abilities testing. These tests determined T.A. had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, he did not qualify for special education services through the public school district and continued to struggle academically (Justia Law).

In February 2003, his parents discussed the possibility of T.A. to complete high school through a partnership program with a local community college. The parents also hired a private counselor who advised them that their best option would be to enroll T.A. into a private academy because of their “structured and residential learning environment,” and focus on educating children with special needs (Justia Law).

After enrolling T.A. into a private academy, the parents sought an administrative review of his eligibility for special education services. Initially, this review concluded T.A.’s ADHD did not satisfy IDEA’s disability criteria and therefore, did not have a sufficiently significant adverse impact on his educational performance. However, this was later reversed in September 2003 and the school district was ordered to reimburse the parents for the cost of private school tuition (Justia Law).

The school district sought a judicial review of the ruling from the administrative review. The District Court ruled that the school district was not required to reimburse the parents for the cost of private school tuition because of the 1997 Amendments to IDEA. The District Court stated the Amendments “categorically bar reimbursement of private-school tuition for students who have not ‘previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency’” (Casetext (District Court).

Consequently, the parents appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit of Appeals reversed the The District Court’s ruling citing prior to the 1997 Amendments, “IDEA was silent on the subject of private school reimbursement, but courts had granted such reimbursement as ‘appropriate’ relief…” in several related precedents.

Further, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals held that the Amendments did not impose a categorical bar to reimbursement for individuals who had not previously received special-education services through the public school. Meaning T.A. was therefore eligible for reimbursement, to the same extent as before the 1997 Amendments (Casetext (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)).

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to grant certiorari (legal review) to consider whether under IDEA, a federal court can order a school district to reimburse individuals for tuition at a private school without previously receiving special education services while in the public school (Oyez).

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said IDEA does authorize reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide a FAPE, so long as the private school placement is appropriate. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority and cited Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass. (1985) and Florence County School Dist. 4 v. Carter (1993) to reach its conclusion. In these cases, the Supreme Court had come to the same decision (Oyez).

Justice David Souter wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Souter argued that the 1997 Amendments to IDEA limited authorized reimbursement, and in this case specifically, was not allowed because T.A.’s withdrawal from the public school was unilateral (Oyez). Further, Justice Stouter criticized the majority through their use of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass as a precedent. In this case, the court established authorized reimbursement for parents who placed their child in private school because the school’s special education services did not meet the child’s needs (Justia Law).

Impact

There were two key impacts from the Forest Grove v. T.A. decision. First, in this case in December 2009, federal district court judge Michael Mosman determined the family was not eligible for reimbursement under IDEA. This was due to T.A’s parents later switching schools as a result of his behavioral issues and did not list his ADHD when applying to the private school, which was not protected under IDEA (Oregon Live).

Second, since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Forest Grove v. T.A. case, there have been numerous ensuing cases where families have been able to get reimbursement for private education under the protections from IDEA.

Court Documents

The Full Supreme Court Opinions and Dissents for Forest Grove v. T.A

The oral argument of Forest Grove v. T.A. (2009)

Full Opinion and Order for Forest Grove v. T.A in the Oregon District Court

Full Opinion and Order for Forest Grove v. T.A in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The Full Supreme Court Opinions and Dissents for Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass.

The Full Supreme Court Opinions and Dissents for Florence County School Dist. 4 v. Carter

Link to Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (Updated Amendments to IDEA) (now known as IDEIA)

Link to IDEA Parent Guide (IDEA: 2004)

Citations

"Forest Grove School District v. T.A." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-305. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.

Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Casetext, 27 Apr. 2005.