Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania (the state) (defendant), children with intellectual disabilities were excluded from public education programs based on four state statutes. The statutes (1) relieved the state board of education of its obligation to educate children whom a public-school psychologist certified uneducable, (2) allowed indefinite postponement of public-school admission for children who had not attained a mental age of five, (3) excused any child from compulsory school attendance if a psychologist found the child unable to profit from education, and (4) defined compulsory school age as eight to 17 years. The last statute was used to discharge children with intellectual disabilities from school at 17 regardless of developmental status. The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children and the parents of 13 children (collectively, the association) (plaintiffs) filed a class-action suit against the state and its school districts (defendants) on behalf of all children who were excluded from public education. The association argued that the state statutes were unconstitutional on due-process and equal-protection grounds. The due-process argument was based on the lack of hearings before depriving children of access to public education or altering their educational placements. The equal-protection argument was based on the unfounded premise that certain children with intellectual disabilities were uneducable. Expert testimony established that all persons with intellectual disabilities were capable of benefiting from education. The parties met to settle the matter and submitted a consent agreement to the district court for approval. Under the agreement, the challenged statutes could not be used to deny a child with intellectual disabilities of his right to an education. The state was required to provide each child with free and appropriate public education, and educational placements were to be reevaluated every two years. Additionally, hearings were to be offered before any adjustment to educational status. With the agreement before the court for approval, the court first considered whether the association’s claims were sufficiently colorable to give the court subject-matter jurisdiction.