Phillip C. v. Jefferson County Board of Education
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
701 F.3d 691 (2012)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
A.C. was a child who was entitled to special-education services. A.C.’s parents (plaintiffs) disagreed with the assessment of A.C.’s abilities that was made by the Jefferson County Board of Education (the district) (defendant) during the special-education-planning process. A.C.’s parents sought an independent educational evaluation (IEE) as allowed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and then sought reimbursement from the district for the IEE, as allowed under federal Department of Education regulations. The district refused to reimburse A.C.’s parents for the IEE. The parents filed for an administrative review of the district’s refusal, which ordered the district to reimburse A.C.’s parents. Upon the district’s continued refusal, A.C.’s parents filed a claim in federal district court. The district counterclaimed and filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the federal regulations requiring it to pay for the IEE were invalid because they exceeded the Congressional authority granted to the Department of Education to promulgate rules governing the IDEA. The district court denied the district’s motion for summary judgment and affirmed the administrative ruling ordering the district to reimburse A.C.’s parents. The district appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barkett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
