Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy - 548 U.S. 291, 126 S. Ct. 2455 (2006)

Rule:

The terms of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) overwhelmingly support the conclusion that prevailing parents may not recover the costs of experts or consultants. Certainly the terms of the IDEA fail to provide the clear notice that would be needed to attach such a condition to a State's receipt of IDEA funds.

Facts:

After respondents prevailed in their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action to require petitioner school board to pay for their son's private school tuition, they sought fees for services rendered by an educational consultant during the proceedings, relying on an IDEA provision that permits a court to "award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs" to prevailing parents, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). The District Court granted their motion in part. Affirming, the Second Circuit noted that, under Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 107 S. Ct. 2494, 96 L. Ed. 2d 385, and West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 111 S. Ct. 1138, 113 L. Ed. 2d 68, a cost- or fee-shifting provision will not be read to permit recovery of expert fees without explicit statutory authority, but concluded that a congressional Conference Committee Report relating to § 1415(i)(3)(B) and a footnote in Casey referencing that Report showed that the IDEA authorized such reimbursement.

Issue:

Did Section 1415(i)(3)(B) authorize prevailing parents to recover expert fees?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that § 1415(i)(3)(B)) did not authorize recovery of fees for experts' services, as (1) IDEA's terms (a) overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that prevailing parents were not allowed to recover the costs of experts or consultants, and (b) failed to provide the clear notice that was required, under the Federal Constitution's spending clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 1), to attach such a condition to a state's receipt of IDEA funds; (2) the Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford and Casey strongly reinforced the conclusion that IDEA did not unambiguously authorize prevailing parents to recover expert fees; and (3) several arguments--made by the parents in the case at hand--that were not based on IDEA's text did not show that IDEA provided clear notice to states regarding the awarding of expert fees.