On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court made a big decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, striking down the “Chevron doctrine.”
This decision ends a forty-year-old practice that allowed courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting unclear or ambiguous laws. This change could have important consequences for special education, particularly when it comes to how courts handle cases about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Q: What was Chevron and why does it matter?
A: Under the Chevron doctrine, courts usually gave agencies like the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) the benefit of the doubt when interpreting laws like IDEA, as long as the agency’s interpretation seemed reasonable. This helped ensure that special education policies and rules were applied consistently across the country. For example, if a school district had a question about how to provide services for a student with disabilities, they could look to the USDOE for guidance on how to apply IDEA’s rules.
Q: What changes now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Chevron?
A: With Chevron overturned, courts no longer have to automatically follow the Department of Education’s interpretations of IDEA when the law is unclear. Instead, judges will interpret these laws themselves, based on their own views. This means that courts may take different approaches to the same issue, leading to less consistency in how special education laws are applied across the country.
Q: What does this mean for schools and parents?
A: For schools and families, the Court’s decision to overturn Chevron could create more uncertainty. School districts that rely on the USDOE’s rules and guidance may now have to adjust quickly if courts decide to interpret IDEA in a different way. For example, if a court rules that a school is not providing enough support to a student with a disability, this could lead to changes in how other schools across the country interpret their responsibilities under IDEA.
Parents and advocates for students with disabilities may also face more challenges. If courts have more freedom to interpret the law differently, it could lead to inconsistent decisions about what qualifies as a “Free Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE), or what services students with disabilities are entitled to. This could make it harder for families to know what to expect when advocating for their child’s education.
Q: Will this mean more legal battles?
A: Overall, the Court’s decision could mean more legal battles over special education, as courts take a more active role in interpreting the law. While this might lead to more individualized decisions, it could also create confusion and inequality for students with disabilities across the country. Parents, schools, and advocates will need to pay close attention to how courts handle future special education cases.
.