Special Education: Case Law

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

Rowley (458 U.S. 176, 1982) was the first special education case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centered on Amy Rowley, a deaf student who was an excellent lip-reader. At the beginning of her first-grade year, as her individualized education program (IEP) was being developed, her parents insisted the school provide Amy with a qualified sign-language interpreter. The school administrators concluded that Amy did not need the services of an interpreter because she was achieving the learning outcomes of the curriculum and was socially integrated into the classroom. As a result, the request for an interpreter was denied. Amy's parents filed suit against the school district, claiming that the refusal of the school to provide an interpreter for their daughter denied her the “free appropriate public education” that is guaranteed by the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the evidence established that Amy received an appropriate education because she was easily progressing from grade to grade and the district did not have to provide her with a sign-language interpreter.

Irving Independent School District v. Amber Tatro

Amber Tatro was an 8-year-old girl with spina bifida, resulting in a disorder that prevented her from emptying her bladder voluntarily. As a result, she needed frequent catheterization to empty her bladder and avoid damage to her kidneys. The catheterization procedure was fairly simple, and her parents, babysitter, and teenage brother were all qualified to perform it. Amber's parents sought to have school personnel perform the catheterization procedure, but were denied. Amber's parents filed suit against the school district claiming Amber's “free appropriate public education,” which is guaranteed by the federal government in the Education of the Handicapped Act, was being denied. In particular, the suit claimed that the “related services” that Amber was entitled to receive as required by law included catheterization procedures. The case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court [Irving Independent School District v. Amber Tatro (468 U.S. 883, 1984)], which ruled that providing the catheterization procedure was a “related service” and should be provided by the school district.

Honig v. Doe

Honig v. Doe (484 U.S. 305, 1988) involved two students who were expelled by the San Francisco Unified School District for violent and disruptive behavior. It was argued that the behavior of the students was a result of their emotional disabilities and the students should, therefore, not be expelled. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that both students' behavior was causally connected to their disabilities. Because their behavior was a manifestation of their disabilities, expelling the students violated their rights guaranteed to them under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. If a school is considering expelling a student with a disability, a manifestation determination review must be conducted to determine whether the student's behavior was causally related to his or her disability.

...