Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1
2017 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"),[1] required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."[2] In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1 | |
---|---|
Argued January 11, 2017 Decided March 22, 2017 | |
Full case name | Endrew F., a minor, by and through his parents and next friends, Joseph F. et al. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 |
Docket no. | 15–827 |
Citations | 580 U.S. ___ (more) 137 S. Ct. 988; 197 L. Ed. 2d 335 |
Case history | |
Prior | |
Procedural | On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |
Holding | |
To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an Individualized Education Program (IEP) reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. |
The central issue in the case was about "the level of educational benefit school districts must provide students with disabilities as defined by IDEA."[3] The Supreme Court held that the proper standard under the IDEA "is markedly more demanding than the 'merely more than de minimis' test applied by the Tenth Circuit."[4] The Court added that meaningful, "appropriately ambitious" progress goes further than what the lower courts had held.[5] The Court, however, rejected a stricter equal access or equal opportunity standard for a free and appropriate education proposed by the plaintiff. The case was described by advocates as "the most significant special-education issue to reach the high court in three decades."[6]