Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued January 11, 2017
Decided March 22, 2017
Full case nameEndrew F., a minor, by and through his parents and next friends, Joseph F. et al. v. Douglas County School District RE-1
Docket no.Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–"./15–827-15–827.htmExpression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–". 15–827
Citations580 U.S. ___ (more)
137 S. Ct. 988; 197 L. Ed. 2d 335
Case history
Prior
  • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 798 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 2015)
  • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, No. 12-CV-02620-LTB (D. Colo. Sep. 15, 2014)
ProceduralOn Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Holding
To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"),[1] schools must provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."[2] In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and held that the proper standard under the IDEA "is markedly more demanding than the 'merely more than de minimis' test applied by the Tenth Circuit."[3]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ^ 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
  2. ^ Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, No. 15-827, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), slip. op. at 11.
  3. ^ Endrew F., slip op. at 14, 16.

External links[edit]