Winkelman v. Parma City School District - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Justice Kennedy has our opinion this morning in case No. 05-983, Winkelman versus Parma City School District.

Argument of Justice Kennedy

Mr. Kennedy: The petitioners in this case are Mr. and Mrs. Winkelman and their young son Jacob.

Some four years ago the senior Winkelman sought review relating to concerns they had over whether Jacob would progress well at the Elementary School to which he has been assigned.

Jacob who has Autism Spectrum Disorder is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act called IDEA.

This is a federal law, it entitles Jacob to certain protections and remedies including the ability to bring suit into Federal Court to ensure his school district have provided him with what the statute calls a free appropriated public education.

The question here is whether IDEA also entitles Jacob’s parents to certain protections and remedies so that they too may bring suit in Federal Court.

Jacob’s parents seek to sue on their own behalf because if they are permitted to do so, they would be allowed to proceed in court without an attorney.

The Parma City School District in Parma City, Ohio is the respondent in the case.

The School District argues that IDEA accords the rights here and question is only to children not to their parents as well.

We find that text of this statute forecloses this interpretation.

IDEA defines one of its purposes as seeking to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected and that word writes in this language refers to the rights of parents as well as the rights of the child otherwise the grammatical structure would make no sense.

The School District nevertheless claims that the sole purpose driving IDEA’s involvement of parents is to facilitate vindication of a child’s rights so the District would have us read the statutes many references to parents’ rights as referring an implicit terms to the child’s rights alone.

Even if we were inclined to ignore the planed text of the statute in considering this theory we disagree that this is IDEA’s only purpose.

It’s hardly a noble proposition to say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education and upbringing of their child.

Without question of parent of a child with a disability has a particular and personal stake and so felling what IDEA identifies as our national policy of insuring equality of opportunity for participation independent living and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.

We find no reason to read into this statute an implicit rejection of the notion that Congress would accord parents’ entitlements concerning the education of their children.

But the contrary we conclude the statute grants parents independent enforceable rights.

In light of ideas, text and structure moreover we find that these rights are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement related matter but rather encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate education for the parents’ child.

The parents may therefore bring suit under IDEA on their own behalf in Federal Court and then they do so without the assistance of an attorney.

In light of our holding we need not decide whether the parents acting for sake could have sought redress on behalf of their child.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in part in the judgment and dissenting in part and Justice Thomas has joined that opinion.