Smith v. Robinson
United States Supreme Court
468 U.S. 992 (1984)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Tommy Smith (plaintiff) was an eight-year-old who suffered from cerebral palsy and several other physical and emotional disabilities. A dispute arose between Smith’s family and the state education system (defendant) over the appropriate school for Tommy and which state agency was responsible for funding his placement and associated services. Smith filed suit in federal district court against the state’s school committee, alleging violations of state law, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Smiths’ legal theories centered on Tommy’s right to a free, appropriate special education. The Smiths’ lawsuit was effectively decided under the EHA, a statute that did not provide for recovery of attorney’s fees. The Smiths claimed that because they also brought other federal claims, they were entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Rehabilitation Act. The fee-recovery matter was appealed to the First Circuit and then the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed whether a disabled plaintiff filing suit for his public-education right could circumvent or enlarge the listed EHA remedies by relying on other statutory and constitutional claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
