In 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA guarantees a free, appropriate public education to each student with a disability in every state and locality in the U.S. Since the passage of the IDEA, public schools in the U.S. have provided individualized special education and related services to students with disabilities. Moreover, the IDEA has given the parents of these students the opportunity to take part in programming decisions.

The plight of a student with a hearing impairment was recently brought to the public’s attention after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rendered a decision in Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. The IDEA sets forth administrative procedures parents and school districts may follow to resolve disputes concerning the education of a student with special needs. The parents of Miguel Luna Perez exercised their rights under the IDEA and challenged the public school district in Sturgis, Michigan. They documented that the District had provided their son with unqualified interpreters and had inflated the progress that their son had made. As provided by the IDEA, the Michigan Department of Education scheduled an administrative hearing of the parents’ concerns. Prior to convening the hearing, the school district reached a settlement with the parents. The school district agreed to provide the relief the parents sought under the IDEA, including additional secondary schooling for Miguel.

However, Miguel’s story does not end there. Miguel’s representatives then sued in Federal district court under a second Federal statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In that suit, the parents sought compensatory damages. The Sturgis Public Schools moved to dismiss the suit. It claimed that Miguel was barred from bringing his ADA claim because he had not exhausted administrative procedures under the IDEA. The district court agreed and dismissed the suit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Upon review, on March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court concluded that Miguel’s representatives were not barred from seeking compensatory damages under the ADA. Such compensation falls outside the purview of the IDEA. The Supreme Court concluded that Miguel’s suit under the ADA may proceed even if it seeks relief for the same educational harm theIDEA exists to address. The high court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded Miguel’s case for further proceedings. In his opinion, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recognized that Miguel’s case holds consequences not just for Miguel but for a great many students with disabilities and their parents.