The U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling that parents have rights under the main , and thus may represent themselves in federal court without the assistance of a lawyer, has legal experts disagreeing about whether a rush to the courthouse will result.
The was unanimous on the idea that parents have some rights to represent themselves without a lawyer under the . But the justices split 7-2 in deciding that parents have substantive and procedural rights that encompass their child鈥檚 right to a free, appropriate public education under the law.
鈥淧arents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf,鈥� said the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. 鈥淭he decision by Congress to grant parents these rights was consistent with the purpose of IDEA and fully in accord with our social and legal traditions.鈥�
鈥淚t is beyond dispute that the relationship between a parent and child is sufficient to support a legally cognizable interest in the education of one鈥檚 child,鈥� Justice Kennedy added.
His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a partial dissent that Justice Clarence Thomas joined.
Justice Scalia said he would hold that parents have the right to proceed pro se, or for themselves, under the IDEA in federal courts when they seek reimbursement for private school expenses for their child or for certain of their own procedural rights. But he would not let them proceed without a lawyer on the basic question of whether their child鈥檚 free, appropriate public education was 鈥渟ubstantively inadequate.鈥�
Justice Scalia also warned that cases pressed by parents without a lawyer would burden the court system.
鈥沦颈苍肠别 pro se complaints are prosecuted essentially for free, without screening by knowledgeable attorneys, they are much more likely to be unmeritorious,鈥� Justice Scalia said.
Expense Cited
Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, who are not lawyers, brought the case. They wanted to represent their son in a lawsuit against the , near Cleveland, over the child鈥檚 educational placement.
They could not afford a lawyer, and they argued that the special education law allowed them to represent their son, Jacob, who has a form of autism. The Winkelmans also contended that they were entitled to argue for their own rights under the federal law.
Although the parents lost on both issues in the , in Cincinnati, other federal appeals courts have recognized the right of nonlawyer parents to represent themselves, at least on procedural issues.
The Winkelmans argued that requiring parents to get lawyers means that many families are shut out of federal court because of the expense and because of a shortage of lawyers willing to take on special education cases. Supporting the family鈥檚 position were a number of disability-advocacy groups, as well as the Bush administration.
The Parma district argued that there is no language in the special education law that supports a departure from the procedural rule that a nonlawyer cannot represent another party鈥檚 interests in federal court. Parents don鈥檛 have the legal skills to represent their children in court, in contrast to less formal due-process hearings, where hearing officers may give them deference, the district said. (鈥淐ourt to Hear IDEA Case on Parents鈥� Rights,鈥� Feb. 21, 2007.)
The district developed an individualized education program, or IEP, for Jacob for the 2003-04 school year. The Winkelmans contended that he needed more support than the district was willing to provide. The family sought a determination that Jacob did not receive a free, appropriate public education as guaranteed under the IDEA, that his IEP was inadequate, and that they should be reimbursed for their tuition costs at a private school where they have enrolled Jacob, who is 9 years old. That school, the , charges tuition of about $50,000 a year.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a good day for parents,鈥� Sandee Winkelman said on the day the decision came down. 鈥淭omorrow we have to go back to Jacob. But today is parents鈥� day.鈥�
Ms. Winkelman, who consulted the library at Cleveland State University and prevailed on sympathetic law students to help her find materials on special education law, now says the publicity has prompted lawyers to come forward and offer their assistance with the family鈥檚 case. After winning the right to argue the case on their own, it is unlikely the Winkelmans will end up doing so, she said.
鈥淚 always believed that everyone needs an attorney. You always have a better chance with one, let鈥檚 face it,鈥� Ms. Winkelman said. 鈥淚 hope parents don鈥檛 have to go without, but they can do it now.鈥�
Christina Henagen Peer, a lawyer representing the Parma district, said in a statement that the district ultimately expects to win a ruling that it 鈥渇ully complied with the requirements of IDEA.鈥�
Lawyers for school districts said they feared that more parents would seek to press their children鈥檚 IDEA cases without a lawyer.
鈥淣ow there will be more cases, because parents know they can carry them through,鈥� said Kathleen S. Mehfoud, a Richmond, Va., lawyer who often represents districts in special education cases.
鈥淭he federal civil rules are complex,鈥� she added. 鈥淧arents will definitely be at a disadvantage.鈥�
Francisco M. Negr贸n Jr., the general counsel of the , said lawyers serve as gatekeepers, advising parents when they don鈥檛 have a strong case.
Too Emotional?
鈥淟awyers have an obligation not to bring forward cases that are frivolous or without merit,鈥� said Mr. Negr贸n, whose Alexandria, Va.-based organization had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on the side of the Parma district. 鈥淧arents are undoubtedly emotionally involved in their children鈥檚 cases. They might not be able to bring the same kind of legal analysis to bear.鈥�
Advocates for parents and children in special education said they doubted that federal courthouses would be overrun by parent cases.
Pete Wright, a Deltaville, Va., lawyer who co-runs Wrightslaw, a Web site about special education law, agreed that nonlawyer parents are at a disadvantage when it comes to the complexities of pressing a case in federal court.
Mr. Wright placed the Winkelman decision in the top three or four in importance of about 10 IDEA cases decided by the justices.
鈥淭his is the first case where they have really focused on the rights of parents, and the role of parents,鈥� under the law, he said.
Jim Gerl, a special education law consultant in West Virginia who sometimes serves as a hearing officer or mediator in that state, noted that the high court had recently ruled for districts in IDEA cases dealing with the burden of proof and expert witnesses in due-process hearings. (鈥淗igh Court Boosts Districts in IDEA Cases,鈥� Nov. 30, 2005, and 鈥淛ustices Rule Against Parents in IDEA Case,鈥� July 12, 2006.)
Now the pendulum has swung the other way. 鈥淭his decision gives clear guidance that there is more or less a family interest in the education of the child,鈥� Mr. Gerl said.
