Amicus Requests. COPAA welcomes requests for Amicus Briefs for cases that present an issue or issues consistent with our mission statement, have a precedent setting value and affect the educational welfare of school age children with disabilities. More

Amicus and Related News

A.G. v. Wissahickon Sch. District. On October 28, 2009 COPAA and the Education Law Center filed an amicus brief addressing the research basis for LRE requirements in. A.G. v. Wissahickon Sch. Dist. case in the Third Circuit.  The brief addresses the particular importance of providing education to all children – including children with disabilities – in the least restrictive environment, so as to promote independence and self-sufficiency.  In the Brief, COPAA and ELC provide to the Court  some of the extensive empirical research which demonstrates the importance and efficacy of providing education to children with disabilities in the general education classroom.  Special thanks to Larry Berger of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP for drafting and filing the brief.

King v. Pioneer Regional Educational Service Agency. On July 7, 2009, COPAA filed an amicus brief in support of the Parents in King v. Pioneer Regional Educational Service Agency, pending in the Georgia Court of Appeals.  In that case, the trial court dismissed claims arising from a Jonathan King's suicide by hanging in a barred seclusion cell at an isolated center for students with severe emotional disorders. During the fall of 2004 Jonathan was suspended from school and later hospitalized in a psychiatric facility.  Jonathan's death occurred while he was out of direct line of sight of school staff after he was permitted to retain the rope belt given him by Defendant.  COPAA argued (1) Jonathan had a right as a student to a safe educational setting and the Defendants had a duty to keep him free from harm; (2) Georgia has not authorized the use of seclusion in public schools, making Defendants' practice illegal; (3) Jonathan's seclusion without safeguards was "confinement" and created a known danger for which the defendants should be liable under federal law; (4) Under IDEA and Georgia law, the State Defendants have clear legal responsibilities to Jonathan; and (5) The seclusion practices were below the minimal standards of the profession and shocking in disregard of basic safeguards.  Our thanks to COPAA Members Jonathan Zimring and Dawn R. Smith who wrote the brief on behalf of COPAA.  The Atlanta Legal Aid Society, National Disability Rights Network, and TASH signed onto the amicus brief.

T.W. v. Seminole County. On July 7, 2009 COPAA filed an amicus brief in T.W. v. Seminole County in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  In T.W., the trial court dismissed the claims of a student with autism spectrum disorder and his mother.   In that case, COPAA argued that the teacher's abuse of restraint techniques on students with disabilities violated prevailing professional standards and created a substantial risk of harm.  Our thanks to COPAA Member Craig Goodmark of Atlanta Legal Aid Society, who wrote the brief on behalf of COPAA.  The Atlanta Legal Aid Society, the Georgia Advocacy Office, TASH, the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, and the National Disabilities Rights Network signed onto the amicus brief in support of T.W.

Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A. On 6/22/09  in Forest Grove School District v. T.A. a case in which COPAA filed an amicus brief  supporting the Student and his Parents, the Supreme Court held (in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Stevens) that tuition reimbursement is an appropriate remedy when the child has not received special education services prior to the unilateral placement.  School districts have argued for years that amendments in IDEA 1997 precluded tuition reimbursement under these circumstances.  The Court rejected that argument, strongly re-affirming the Burlington-Carter decisions that first established the right to tuition reimbursement.  In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that, in passing IDEA 1997, Congress found "that substantial gains had been made in the area of special education but that more needed to be done to guarantee children with disabilities adequate access to appropriate services."  Therefore, absent an explicit expression of intent to override Burlington-Carter, the Court would not erode the rights created by those cases.  In addition, the Court reiterated its statement in Burlington that the review process alone is "ponderous" and not sufficient to ensure that there is a meaningful remedy for a failure to provide FAPE.   Our sincere thanks to Ankur Goel, Tamu K. Floyd and John Walker from McDermott, Will & Emery, who wrote COPAA’s Amicus brief in this case. Congratulations and thank you to the COPAA Amicus Committee (Co-Chaired by Selene Almazan and Catherine Merino Reisman) for their excellent work. Finally, congratulations to COPAA member Mary Broadhurst on the substantial victory.  The full opinion can be read here.

Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z. On November 24, 2008, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z., arguing that district court appropriately ordered reimbursement for a residential placement for a student. More

Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. On July 18, 2007, COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. COPAA argued that parents may seek tuition reimbursement under IDEA for a child who has been denied a FAPE but who did not previously receive special education services from the school district. More

John M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Evanston Township. On June 22, 2007, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief in John M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Evanston Township. COPAA argued that a school district may not unilaterally reduce its stay-put obligation to the details expressly specified in the IEP, but must provide all services that are part of the child's then-current placement.  More

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy. In March 2006, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in this important case. COPAA explained that parents who prevail in IDEA cases should be reimbursed for expert witness fees. Without such reimbursement, there is no equal access to a public education that is both free and appropriate. Expert witness testimony is vital in IDEA cases, and few parents can afford the thousands of dollars it can cost. COPAA also argued that the legislative history shows that Congress intended parents to recover expert fees as part of their costs. More

Winkelman v. Parma City School District. In December 2006, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case. COPAA urged the Court to find that parents have the right to represent themselves in special education court cases. More

Woods Family. The COPAA Amicus and Governmental Affairs Committees followed closely the Cleveland Bar Association's unauthorized practice of law complaint filed against two parents, Brian and Susan Woods in May 2006. The Bar Association dismissed its complaint. The Woods had been pursuing their own IDEA and related civil rights claims in federal court without a lawyer. COPAA was preparing a letter to the Bar Association and considering filing an amicus in before the Ohio Supreme Court when the news arrived. This case also garnered a favorable editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. More

Schaffer v. Weast. In March 2005, COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court, explaining that the burden of proof in special education cases should appropriately be on the school district. Twelve other organizations signed on to COPAA's brief (PDF, 39 pgs, 2.3MB). In response to the Supreme Court's decision placing the burden on parents, COPAA explains that the decision is likely to cause school districts to undermine the rights of parents and deprive children of free appropriate public educations. School districts have an overwhelming advantage during the IEP process and at due process, and they have much greater resources at their disposal than parents. COPAA's statement is here.

Mr. and Mrs. I v. Maine School Administrative District No. 55: In August 2006, COPAA filed an amicus curiae brief in Mr. and Mrs. I v. Maine School Adminsitrative District No. 55, urging the First Circuit to uphold the District Court's finding of eligibility under IDEA for a child with Asperger's Syndrome. A child whose academic performance is adequate, but has substantial social and emotional problems that affect her educational performance, is eligible for services under the IDEA, including social and pragmatic skills training. The IDEA recognizes that the a child may need different kinds of special education services to access an education. These include functional, behavioral, social, and academic needs. COPAA's amicus brief further urged the Court to reject the school district's formulation that a student must demonstrate a "significant negative impairment" on educational performance to qualify under the IDEA. The statute includes no such requirement; nor is it narrowly limited to children who are having academic difficulties.

COPAA's brief was written by Diane Smith of the Disabilities Rights Center of Maine. COPAA joined with co-amici National Disabilities Rights Network, Autism Society of Maine, and the Disability Rights Center of Maine. COPAA has a deep commitment to all children with disabilities, including those who may be progressing academically but need special-education due to a wide-variety of non-academic needs. Read COPAA's amicus brief here (PDF, 36 pgs, 840k). Respondent Mr. and Mrs I's brief, written by COPAA members brief, Richard O'Meara, Amy Sneirson, and Staci Converse is available here (PDF, 71 pgs, 280k). The First Circuit ruled in the parents’ favor in March 2007.  Download the First Circuit’s opinion here:

Board of Education of Montgomery County v. S.G.: In September 2006, COPAA filed an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit in this case involving the IDEA's coverage of all children with disabilities, including those who are making academic progress. S.G. is a 13-year old girl who, due to schizophrenia, was unable to receive meaningful educational benefit in public school. COPAA's brief supported the position of S.G., who was represented by member Mark Martin. The briefs argued that the IDEA requires all children with disabilities to receive a free appropriate public education. A child with a serious emotional disturbance that adversely affect her educational progress is eligible for special-education and related services regardless of her cognitive ability or grades. Hearing voices, hallucinating, and being unable to properly attend or participate in school and classes are hallmarks of an inappropriate education, the briefs noted. Moreover, skewing a child's grades in order to pass her is inappropriate.

COPAA is grateful for the pro bono work of attorney Kristen Perry and the firm of Whiteford, Taylor and Preston, as well as the work of COPAA's amicus committee. The National Disability Rights Network joined COPAA in its amicus brief. COPAA's brief is available here (PDF, 37 pgs, 896k), and S.G.'s brief written by COPAA Member Mark Martin is available here (PDF, 59 pgs, 1.7m). The Fourth Circuit ruled in the parents’ favor in May 2007.  Download the Fourth Circuit opinion here

*PDFs require Acrobat Reader for viewing. If you don't have Acrobat Reader installed on your computer, you can download a copy for free.)