Supreme Court Diary

 CRESPI 
FINE ART
“In Section  1414 of the U.S.C., it specifically provides if you reject the IEP, you’ve waived any right to a free and appropriate public education.”

2007-2008 Term

“20 U.S.C. 1412, which was the eligibility section...was very truncated. It did not provide a lot 
of conversation concerning the relationship 
of public & private schools with the IDEA. It provided that  you had to provide the child who demanded it a FAPE (Free Appropriate Education.) If you couldn’t do that, the public school has to then pay for the tuition. It was silent, though, on the relationship between the private school where the child voluntarily removes.”

Leonard  Koerner, Petitioner. Corporation Counsel for the City of New York

Paul Gardephe, Attorney for Respondent.

“I place my child in Kindergarden in public school for one day. I then have satisfied the statute. Previously received education related services. 5 years later I still can rely on that, 10 years later I can still rely on that,  it’s a talisman.

“In a perfect world, your honor, school districts confronted with a situation, would always make the decision to place the chin child in private schools at public expense.”

“I want to back up my assertion on the ‘only if’ language and recite some statutory references, because I believe it stems very clearly from the statue when you go through the provisions:  ‘Only if’ or ‘only’ are used in many places - 1415(f),  (3) (E) (ii),  1414(a) (1) (C) ii, 1411(b)(1)(A), 1401(19)(C), 1415(k)(4)(C), in the ’98 version of the statue, 1413- “

SCALIA: “Bingo. You got me on that.”

“This court said in Winkleman that courts should be cautious in reading into the statute an implicit limitation, and this limitation goes to what this court said...is the primary mandate...There is 
no reason to believe Congress intended, in a backdoor fashion, to carve out the
populations of children.”
HOME../../../../TODD_CRESPI.com.html
BIO/CONTACT../../../../BIO_CONTACT.html

© 2013  All rights reserved.  toddcrespi.com

BACK TO
SUPREME 
COURT DIARY 
ARCHIVE../../../Archive.html
“The primary obligation is to find  public education for this child, and if from day one you assume that the individual education plan is defective, not only is it inconsistent with Schaffer, it’s inconsistent with the whole statutory scheme, which is set up to try to work co-operatively.”
OILS../../../../OILS.html

New