Smith v. Robinson
468 U.S. 992 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The comprehensive remedial scheme of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) is the exclusive avenue for seeking a free appropriate public education, thereby precluding attorney's fees awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act for claims that are substantively grounded in the EHA.
Facts:
- Thomas F. Smith III (Tommy), a child with cerebral palsy and other handicaps, was placed in a special day program funded by the Cumberland School Committee.
- In November 1976, the Superintendent of Schools informed Smith's parents that the School Committee would no longer fund his placement.
- The School Committee contended that under state law, the responsibility for Tommy's education lay with a different state agency, the Division of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (MHRH).
- The law governing the MHRH could have required Tommy's parents to contribute to the cost of his education, which would conflict with the federal requirement for a 'free' education.
- Smith's parents initiated state administrative proceedings to challenge the School Committee's decision.
- During the administrative process, the state-appointed hearing officer, who was an employee of the state education agency, refused a motion to recuse himself for lack of impartiality.
- The parents sought to establish that the local School Committee was solely responsible for providing Tommy with a free and appropriate public education.
Procedural Posture:
- The Smith family (petitioners) sued the Cumberland School Committee in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- The District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the School Committee to continue funding Tommy's placement pending administrative review.
- After administrative rulings, the Smiths filed amended complaints adding state education officials (respondents) as defendants and asserting claims under the EHA, the Fourteenth Amendment, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The District Court certified state law questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which held that the local school committee was primarily responsible for funding.
- The District Court ruled in favor of the Smiths, holding on state law grounds that the School Committee was responsible for paying for Tommy's education.
- The District Court then awarded the Smiths attorney's fees against the state defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, finding their unaddressed federal constitutional and statutory claims were substantial.
- The state defendants appealed the fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the EHA was the exclusive remedy and its comprehensive scheme implicitly precluded attorney's fee awards under other statutes.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Smiths.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the comprehensive remedial scheme of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), which does not authorize attorney's fees, preclude an award of such fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act for a plaintiff who prevails on an EHA claim while also pleading related, substantial claims under the Constitution and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) provides the exclusive avenue for a handicapped child to assert a right to a free appropriate public education, and its comprehensive remedial scheme cannot be circumvented or supplemented by resort to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to obtain attorney's fees. The EHA is a detailed and comprehensive statute with carefully tailored administrative and judicial procedures that Congress intended to be the sole mechanism for resolving such claims. Allowing a plaintiff to use § 1983 for a virtually identical equal protection claim would render the EHA's procedural framework superfluous and would run counter to Congress's intent that parents and local agencies collaborate to create individualized education plans. Similarly, where the EHA provides a clear and precise remedy, a plaintiff cannot resort to the more general antidiscrimination provisions of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to obtain otherwise unavailable remedies like attorney's fees. The omission of a fee-shifting provision in the EHA was a deliberate choice by Congress to direct financial resources toward educational services rather than litigation.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No. The comprehensive nature of the EHA does not implicitly repeal the availability of remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Repeals by implication are strongly disfavored and should only be found where there is an irreconcilable conflict. The proper resolution is to require a plaintiff to exhaust the EHA's administrative remedies before bringing a court action under § 1983 or § 504. This approach preserves the EHA's procedural integrity while still giving effect to the fee-shifting provisions of § 1988 and § 505(b), which Congress enacted after the EHA with the broad intent of authorizing fees for civil rights violations. The majority's decision creates an anomalous gap in civil rights law and undermines Congress's clear intent in passing the fee-shifting statutes.
Analysis:
This decision established the EHA as the exclusive remedy for claims concerning a handicapped child's right to public education, effectively foreclosing the use of broader civil rights statutes like § 1983 and § 504 to obtain attorney's fees. The Court's reasoning, centered on the idea of implied preclusion by a comprehensive statutory scheme, set a significant precedent for statutory interpretation in civil rights cases. This ruling was highly controversial as it placed a significant financial burden on parents seeking to vindicate their children's educational rights, leading Congress to legislatively overrule the decision by passing the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, which amended the EHA to explicitly authorize attorney's fees.
