More on Monday’s Opinion in Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

James D’Auguste of Akin Gump has this discussion of Monday’s opinion:

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy that parents of disabled children that prevail in proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) are not permitted to be reimbursed for funds expended on experts.

The Proceedings Below

The parents in this action filed a pro se complaint on behalf of their disabled son alleging that that the school district violated various provisions of IDEA. The complaint sought reimbursement for several years of private school tuition. After the parents prevailed before the district court and Second Circuit on the merits of their claim for educational reimbursement, the action was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the parents sought reimbursement for expert consulting expenses. The school district opposed the application for the inclusion of these expenses in the reimbursement award.

The applicable provision of IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B), states that “[i]n an action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents of a child with a disability who is the prevailing party.” The Conference Committee Report for IDEA’s predecessor statute, the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 (“HCPA”), states that “the term ‘attorneys fees as part of costs’ include reasonable expenses and fees.” HCPA provided for a GAO study regarding the impact of the bill authorizing awarding of fees and costs. The GAO study included information regarding costs and expenses for “attorneys and consultants.”

The district court determined that the parents were entitled to have the school district pay the expenses associated with an educational consultant and the Second Circuit affirmed. The appeal to the Supreme Court by the school district ensued.

Supreme Court Proceedings

Finding the existence of a circuit split as to “whether Congress authorized the compensation of expert fees to prevailing parents in IDEA actions,” the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Stating that IDEA’s text “makes no mention of expert fees,” Justice Alito, delivering the opinion of the Court, ruled that such expenses are not recoverable by prevailing parents. In reaching this conclusion, the majority determined that the term “costs” mentioned in the statute is a “term of art” that did not include expert expenses. While the majority recognized the various reports supporting a finding that expert costs were recoverable by prevailing parents, it ruled that the “legislative history is simply not enough” to change the actual statutory language used. The majority also found that requiring school districts to reimburse prevailing parents for expert fees runs afoul of the Constitution’s Spending Clause, which permits Congress to set the terms and conditions on which it disburses Federal funds, because it does not “unambiguously authorize prevailing parents to recover expert fees.”

Justice Breyer, who was joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Souter, disagreed with the majority’s decision that expert fees are not reimbursable to a prevailing parent. Noting that “costs” is not defined in the statute, the minority found that “the statute itself indicates that Congress did not intend to use the word ‘costs’ as a term of art.” The minority placed particular importance on HCPA’s Conference Committee Report, which expressly stated that expert fees were recoverable by prevailing parents, and the GAO Report, which compiled information on, among other expenses, expert fees. Finding that Congress intended that prevailing parents should be entitled to receiving reimbursement for costs associated with experts, Justice Breyer stated that he could “find no good reason for this Court to interpret the language of this statute as meaning the precise opposite of what Congress told us it intended.”

History may eventually side with the minority. After the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey that the term “costs” in civil rights fee-shifting statutes did not include expert fees, Congress abrogated the decision by statute. As such, the last word on whether prevailing parents may be entitled to reimbursement for expert expenses in IDEA cases and proceedings may yet to have been written.