US Supreme Court Places Burden of Proof on Parents for Demonstrating Shortcomings in Special Education Programs

The aforementioned ruling was a defeat for a Maryland family who had contested a Special Ed program designed by Montgomery County for their son who has learning disabilities and speech impairments.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion stating that those who challenge the program at administrative hearings had to show that it was inadequate. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. Justice Ginsburg opined that she was persuaded that policy considerations, convenience and fairness call for assigning the burden of proof to the school district in this case.

The federal law at issue in the case, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), does not specifically say who has the burden of proof in such disputes. This ruling has a broad impact considering this law (IDEA) covers special education services to millions of children with various types of disabilities.

The opinion further stated that Because IDEA is silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion, this Court begins with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the burden regarding the essential aspects of their claims. Although the ordinary rule admits of exceptions, decisions that place the entire burden of persuasion on the opposing party at the outset of a proceeding—as petitioners urge the Court to do here—are extremely rare. Absent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, the Court will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.

O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., and BREYER, J., filed dissenting opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

The entire text of this important ruling is available at US Supreme Court ruling in SCHAFFER ET UX, ET AL. v. WEAST, SUPERINTENDENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL.