S.C. v. Lincoln County School District (2021)

By Andrew Dawson

Overview

In S.C. v. Lincoln County School District, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a stay put order to enforce the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling that required S.C.’s educational placement to the Latham Center at the expense of the Lincoln County School District (Justia Law). Further, Ninth Circuit of appeals pointed to two errors that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon made in their ruling (FindLaw). Also importantly, “stay put” provision is a part of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). The “stay put” order ensures students with disabilities remain in their current educational placement while legal proceedings are being resolved (Lee). 

Summary

S.C. was a teenage student attending Lincoln County School District. She also has severe Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) which is a genetic condition that disrupts her appetite control and causes anxiety, major depressive disorder, and developmental delays. Further, S.C. experiences poor impulse control and behavioral issues. As a result, since the 2015-2016 school year, she received special education services from the school district and regularly updated her Individualized Learning Plan (IEP) (FindLaw). 

In May 2020, K.G. (S.C.’s mother) filed an administrative challenge against the school district claiming the school failed to provide Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). While this administrative review was pending, the school district finalized a new IEP in September 2020. Yet, ALJ’s due process review is limited to two years preceding the process of the complaint, their ruling could not and did not cover the September 2020 IEP (Justia Law).

In December 2020, the AJL issued a ruling, which found that the Lincoln County School District did not provide S.C. with a FAPE. Specifically, the AJL found S.C. needed to be provided with “total food security” (TFS) to maintain a “meaningful educational environment.” Further, the ALJ found that previous IEPs (during their review period from May 2018 to May 2020) only ensured TFS by placing her in a “Structured Learning Center,” which removed from the regular school environment, which was disadvantageous to her educational and social development (Justia Law).

As a result of the AJL’s ruling finding the school district failed to provide S.C. a FAPE, the school district was ordered to place S.C. at the Latham Center at their expense. This residential facility treats students with PWS and provides TFS in an educational environment (Justia Law).

Most importantly, the Lincoln County School District did not appeal the AJL’s ruling, but also did not comply with their order. Meaning, the school district failed to arrange for S.C. to be enrolled at the Latham Center. Consequently, K.G. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in January, 2021, seeking a stay put order or preliminary injunction requiring the school district to comply with the AJL’s ruling to pay for S.C. ‘s placement at the Latham Center (FindLaw). 

In March, 2020, the District Court issued an opinion denying K.G.’s request for a stay put order or preliminary injunction. The District Court argued that K.G. needed to challenge the September 2020 in subsequent administrative proceedings. Also importantly, the District Court did not consider how the ALJ’s order impacted a stay put order, but instead focused on the September 2020 IEP and whether it addressed the deficiencies described in the ALJ’s decision (Justia Law). 

K.G. appealed the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, who ruled in October, 2021. The Ninth Circuit of Appeals noted two important errors of law the District Court: 

First, it incorrectly interpreted the ALJ order as providing two alternative simultaneous remedies, rather than an immediate transfer to the Latham Center to be followed only later by another alternative; and second, it did not engage in an analysis of stay put and how the ALJ order changed S.C.’s educational placement (FindLaw).

The Ninth Circuit of Appeals issued a four part order. First, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals reaffirmed the AJL’s order that it is the school district’s responsibility to place S.C. at the Latham Center until the school provides a TFS and appropriate IEP (FindLaw). 

The next three points in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruling noted specific points where the District Court erred in their interpretation of the AJL’s order and its proper interpretation. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals second point noted the District Court’s interpretation as providing “simultaneous alternative remedies” was “totally inconsistent” with the ALJ’s decision, hence why S.C.’s placement as the Lathem Center is warrentred. Third, the school district’s arguments in court, “that the school district could unilaterally nullify the first part of the ALJ order by developing the September 2020 IEP—is illogical and contrary to the IDEA's procedural safeguards.” Finally, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals fourth point was that the District Court’s ruling, suggesting K.G. challenge the September 2020 IEP because it was outside the necessary two-year scope, thus creating “impossible scenario for a parent, one that is inconsistent with the IDEA’s statutory scheme providing specific procedural safeguards” (FindLaw and Justia Law). 

Impact

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded The United States District Court for the District of Oregon for their ruling in S.C. v. Lincoln County School District. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals entered a stay put order to enforce AJL’s order requiring S.C.’s placement at the Latham Center, at the school district's expense. Further, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals laid out when this could change: when the school district can provide S.C. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), total food security (TSF, and an IEP that “addresses all of the inadequacies identified in this order” (FindLaw).

Court Documents

Complete Ruling of The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in S.C. v. Lincoln County School District 

Complete Ruling of The United States District Court for the District of Oregon in S.C. v. Lincoln County School District 

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

A Stay-Put Order under Idea Functions as a Preliminary Injunction, LCWLegal, 22 Dec. 2021, www.lcwlegal.com/news/a-stay-put-order-under-idea-functions-as-a-preliminary-injunction/.

BY v. LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (2021), FindLaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1136392.html/. Accessed 19 Mar. 2025.

Lee, Andrew M.I. “‘Stay Put’ Rights: What They Are and How They Work.” Understood, www.understood.org/en/articles/stay-put-rights-what-they-are-and-how-they-work. Accessed 20 Mar. 2025. 

Wrightslaw.com. “Special Education Caselaw from the U.S. Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals and Federal District Courts at Wrightslaw.” Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy, www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm. Accessed 19 Mar. 2025. 

“S. C. V. Lincoln County School District, No. 21-35242 (9th Cir. 2021).” Justia Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-35242/21-35242-2021-10-18.html. Accessed 19 Mar. 2025.