Supreme Court to Hear Third IDEA Case in Two Years

Monday, January 29, 2007
Contributed by: Andrea L. Slater Gulley

On February 27, 2007, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether non-lawyer parents of disabled children may prosecute pro se an Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. sec. 1400 et seq., case in federal court. The First, Third, and Sixth Circuits have ruled on this issue with mixed results. The case going before the Supreme Court, Winkelman by Winkelman v. Parma City School District, out of the Sixth Circuit, held that the IDEA does not allow non-attorney parents to represent their children in federal lawsuits.

The U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing that the Sixth Circuit's holding, barring parents from appearing pro se, is "inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and purposes of IDEA." Clement also focused on the definition of the broad phrase, "[a]ny party aggrieved," which will likely be the crux of the Court's decision. Clement argues that the Sixth Circuit's holding, barring parents from appearing pro se, is "inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and purposes of IDEA." Clement also focused on the definition of the broad phrase, "[a]ny party aggrieved," which will likely be the crux of the Court's decision.

Arguments against permitting pro se representation include the fact that the IDEA contains a provision that allows parties to proceed in an administrative hearing without an attorney, yet it contains no comparable provision pertaining to court actions. The Respondent in Winkelman has also focused on policy issues, including the concern that permitting non-attorney parents to proceed pro se may increase the number of meritless IDEA lawsuits and thereby burden school districts and divert scarce resources from the education of children with disabilities.

This is the third IDEA case the Supreme Court has heard in two years.

This column is published for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.