Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast
2005 U.S. LEXIS 8554, 546 U.S. 49, 163 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the burden of persuasion rests with the party seeking relief, whether that party is the parent challenging an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or the school district seeking to change one.
Facts:
- Brian Schaffer, a child with learning disabilities and speech-language impairments, struggled academically while attending a private school through the seventh grade.
- In 1997, officials at his private school informed his parents that he needed a different school better equipped to accommodate his needs.
- Brian's parents, the Schaffers, contacted the Montgomery County Public Schools System (MCPS) to request a placement for him for the upcoming school year.
- MCPS evaluated Brian and convened an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, which generated an IEP offering Brian a placement in one of two MCPS middle schools.
- The Schaffers were not satisfied with the proposed IEP, believing Brian required smaller classes and more intensive services.
- Consequently, the Schaffers enrolled Brian in a different private school at their own expense.
- While litigation was ongoing, MCPS offered Brian a placement in a high school with a special learning center, which the parents accepted and where Brian was educated until he graduated.
Procedural Posture:
- The Schaffers (parents) initiated an administrative due process hearing in Maryland to challenge the IEP proposed by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS).
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled for MCPS, holding that the parents, as the complaining party, bore the burden of persuasion.
- The Schaffers filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking review of the ALJ's decision.
- The District Court reversed the ALJ, concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district, and remanded the case.
- On remand, the ALJ, applying the new burden of proof standard, found the evidence to be in 'equipoise' and ruled in favor of the parents.
- MCPS, the respondent, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the burden of proof is properly placed on the party seeking relief, which in this instance was the parents.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In an administrative due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), does the burden of persuasion to show that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is inappropriate fall upon the party seeking relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the burden of persuasion falls upon the party seeking relief. The text of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion, so the Court applies the ordinary default rule that a plaintiff bears the burden of proving their claim. This default principle is consistent with numerous other statutory schemes and is presumed to apply unless Congress indicates otherwise. The argument that the school district's superior access to information warrants shifting the burden is unpersuasive because IDEA provides parents with significant procedural safeguards, including the right to review all records, obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense, and recover attorney's fees if they prevail. These provisions ensure parents have a fair opportunity to challenge an IEP without placing a thumb on the scale by assuming every IEP is invalid until proven otherwise by the school.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. While acknowledging the force of the dissent's arguments regarding policy considerations, convenience, and fairness, the Court should presume that public school officials are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under this important statute. This presumption, in addition to the reasons set forth by the majority, justifies placing the burden of persuasion on the party challenging the school's actions.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No, the burden of persuasion should fall upon the school district. The default rule should be set aside because policy considerations, convenience, and fairness demand it in the unique context of IDEA. Unlike typical civil rights statutes, IDEA imposes an affirmative obligation on school districts to create a suitable IEP for each disabled child. Therefore, the school district, as the proponent of the IEP and the party with superior expertise, resources, and access to information, should be required to demonstrate the IEP's adequacy. Placing the burden on the school district would incentivize it to create genuinely tailored plans from the outset, potentially avoiding costly litigation.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
No, a uniform federal rule should not place the burden on the party seeking relief; instead, the matter should be left to the states. The Act's silence on the burden of persuasion suggests Congress did not resolve the issue and implicitly left it to the states to decide as part of their responsibility to establish hearing procedures. IDEA is a statute built on 'cooperative federalism,' and allowing states to determine this procedural rule is consistent with that structure. Because different states have adopted different rules without apparent harm, the Court should not impose a one-size-fits-all federal rule and should instead remand the case for the state administrative law judge to apply state law.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, uniform federal default rule for the burden of proof in IDEA hearings, resolving a circuit split. By placing the burden on the complaining party, the Court affirmed a traditional procedural principle over policy arguments about the resource disparity between parents and school districts. The ruling may make it more difficult for parents to prevail in challenges to IEPs, particularly in close cases where the evidence is in 'equipoise.' However, the Court also left open the possibility for states to legislate a different standard, preserving an element of federalism in the administration of IDEA.
