Hernandez v. Grisham

In response to the COVID pandemic, New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Grisham (defendant), ordered public schools to close and begin offering remote learning as a substitute for in-person learning. Clarissa Hernandez and other parents of students with disabilities (plaintiffs) sued Grisham and New Mexico’s Public Education Department (defendant) (collectively, the state). The parents alleged that the new system failed to provide students with disabilities with a free and appropriate public education as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Their argument was premised on the fact that remote learning was ill-suited for many students with disabilities. The state moved to dismiss the parents’ complaint, arguing that the state was IDEA compliant because: (1) the IDEA requires the same opportunities for students with disabilities only to the greatest extent possible; (2) students with disabilities had equal access to the remote instruction offered to other students; and (3) small-group in-person instruction was available to certain students with disabilities in addition to the remote-learning platform. As support, the state relied on guidance issued by the federal Department of Education (DOE) mere days after the initial wave of pandemic school closures. The guidance stated that if a school provided education opportunities during a closure, then the school was required to provide equal access to students with disabilities and should, to the greatest extent possible, provide special-education and related services. However, the guidance also emphasized that schools should not avoid closing or offering remote learning because of concerns about maintaining IDEA compliance. As a threshold matter when considering the state’s motion to dismiss, the district court addressed the level of deference to be afforded to the DOE’s guidance.