Amicus Briefs - Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.

Home | Directory | Contact Us | Sign In | Join Us

Amicus Briefs

COPAA is a leader in shaping the body of case law protecting and enforcing the rights of students with disabilities and their families.

Our Amicus Committee provides technical assistance to members and files briefs in cases of national significance. The issues for amicus are issues affecting all children with disabilities and topics of the briefs are varied. Recent topics include the requirement to identify and evaluate all children in all areas of suspected disability; to the constitutional protections and right to be free from physical restraints in schools; and, the three separate and distinct rights and protections offered to all students with disabilities in schools under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA.

In the past two years COPAA filed 25 amicus briefs; two in the United States Supreme Court and the rest in the courts of appeals. 80% of those cases in which COPAA filed an amicus brief were decided in favor of the parents. COPAA welcomes requests for Amicus Briefs for cases that:

1) present an issue(s) consistent with our mission statement
2) have a precedent setting value, and
3) affect the educational welfare of students with disabilities.

Click here for instructions on how to submit request for Amicus or Technical Assistance.

COPAA Amicus Briefs

[ More Info Hide Info ]

This collection included Amicus Briefs written by or for the COPAA Amicus Committee. Also includes ruling, opinions, and Briefs that COPAA signed onto authored by other organizations.

Item Name	Posted By	Date Posted
F.H. et. al. v. Memphis City Sch (6th Cir, 2013) PDF (529.88 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	1/9/2014
Over a ten-year period, F.H. endured physical and emotional abuse from a series of aides who were not properly trained or supervised by the school district. In 2011, despite a Due Process Settlement Agreement, the abuse by F.H.’s aides continued. F.H.’s parents then filed a complaint in federal district court. The federal district court dismissed the parents‘ claims, holding that plaintiffs’ were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit. In the Amicus Brief, COPAA argues that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies to enforce a Settlement Agreement reached during a Resolution Session "conflicts with the plain text of the statute and undermines the purpose of the statute’s alternative dispute resolution provisions," and requiring a student with an IEP to first exhaust administrative procedures before filing a suit under the ADA and Section 504 puts students with IEPs in a less favorable position than students without IEPs to enforce federal law
L.J. v. SB of Broward County (11th Cir,2018) PDF (156.74 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	2/20/2018
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit, L.J. v. School Board of Broward County. COPAA members, Jodi Siegel, Kirsten Anderson, Alice Nelson, and Kevin Golembiewski represent the family. The Supreme Court has recently made clear that the IEPs of children with disabilities must be “appropriately ambitious” to enable them to make progress in in light of their unique abilities. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1000 (2017). The Court explained that children with disabilities are to be challenged to reach their potential progress just as their non-disabled peers are, regardless of the severity of their disabilities. The Supreme Court instead held that IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
A.D.and R.D. v. Haddon Heights BOE (3rd Cir, 2017) PDF (236.14 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	8/1/2017
COPAA, along with amici Education Law Center (ELC) filed an amicus brief in support of the parents/Appellants in A.D. and R.D. Individually and on behalf of their son, S.D. v. Haddon Heights Board of Education on July 19, 2017. The procedural history of this case is as follows: The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed SD’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA. The Third Court affirmed the dismissal in S.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 833 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2016) (S.D. I). The Supreme Court vacated S.D. I and remanded for reconsideration in light of Fry, which was decided several months after S.D. I. See S.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3107 (May 15, 2017). Catherine Merino Reisman, Sarah Zuba and Judith Gran represent the family, Ellen Saideman was co-counsel on the petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
A.G. v. Wissahickon, 3d Cir, Oct2009 PDF (183.42 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	10/11/2012
COPAA and the Education Law Center filed an amicus brief addressing the research basis for LRE requirements in. A.G. v. Wissahickon Sch. Dist. case in the Third Circuit. The brief addresses the particular importance of providing education to all children – including children with disabilities – in the least restrictive environment, so as to promote independence and self-sufficiency. In the Brief, COPAA and ELC provide to the Court some of the extensive empirical research which demonstrates the importance and efficacy of providing education to children with disabilities in the general education classroom. Special thanks to Larry Berger of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP for drafting and filing the brief.
A.M. v. Monrovia, 9th Cir Decision, Dec2010 PDF (85.36 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	10/11/2012
A.M. v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist. - On December 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. On the issue briefed by COPAA, the court agreed with our arguments, holding “Neither the IDEA claim nor the Section 504 claim was mooted by A.M.’s death because the parents sought reimbursement and damages.” The panel remanded to see if the issue of damages had been waived by failure to present it at the administrative level. In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Bennett disagreed that a remand was necessary but agreed with the conclusion on mootness. Judge Bennett specifically cited to COPAA’s brief, stating: “I also concur in the majority’s conclusion that neither the IDEA claim nor the Section 504 claim was mooted by A.M.’s death, because the parents sought reimbursement and damages, so that the district court’s award of attorney fees on the ground that the parents’ separate claims were mooted was improper,"
A.M.v. NY City DOE (2nd Cir, 2016) PDF (243.52 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	4/20/2016
On April 18, 2016 COPAA filed an amicus brief in support of the Appellant-Plaintiff in the 2nd Circuit case: A.M., individually and on behalf of E.H., a child with a disability v. New York City Department of Education. COPAA member, Jason Sterne of the Cuddy Law Firm, represents the parent. Selene Almazan and Andrew Feinstein drafted the brief for COPAA, Andrew Feinstein, a member of the 2nd Circuit, filed the brief on COPAA’s behalf. Alexis Casillas assisted in the drafting.
Anchorage v. M.P, District Ruling, Nov2011 PDF (52.55 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/25/2012
Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. , COPAA previously filed a brief in this matter pending before the Ninth Circuit (see below). On November 1, 2011 the District Court ruled in favor of parents, upholding the Hearing Officer’s determination that the school district did not satisfy the Rowley “meaningful benefit” standard when it utilized an outdated IEP. The court also concluded that the District Court made a legal error when it concluded that the parents’ vigorous advocacy for their child excused the district’s inappropriate IEP.
Anchorage v. M.P. Opinion, 9th Cir, Jul2012 PDF (103.56 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/25/2012
COPAA previously filed a brief in this matter pending before the Ninth Circuit (see below). On November 1, 2011 the District Court ruled in favor of parents, upholding the Hearing Officer’s determination that the school district did not satisfy the Rowley “meaningful benefit” standard when it utilized an outdated IEP. The court also concluded that the District Court made a legal error when it concluded that the parents’ vigorous advocacy for their child excused the district’s inappropriate IEP. (see below) Understanding the importance of this ruling to other cases, COPAA and its Amicus partner filed a Motion asking the Ninth Circuit to publish its decision in this matter. On July 19, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted that motion and issued a new opinion in Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. that was substantially more complete than the original; relying heavily on the arguments presented in COPAA’s brief.
Ashley Krawietz v. Galveston (5th Cir, 2017) PDF (244.86 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	11/14/2017
COPAA filed a Motion to file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, Ashely Kraweitz, an individual with disabilities, by and with and through her parent/guardian/next friend, Amanda Parker v. Galveston Independent School District on November 8, 2017. Selene Almazan and Roy T. Atwood drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to uphold the district court’s ruling that the parents are entitled to attorneys’ fees for the work done to secure the favorable ruling that Ashley was denied a FAPE and entitled to transition services to prepare her for adulthood.
Author's Guild Inc. v. HathiTrust-DECISION(2d Cir) PDF (489.74 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	7/1/2014
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the members of the HathiTrust Digital Library can “create a full-text searchable database of copyrighted works and provide those works in formats accessible to those with disabilities.” Digitizing copyrighted works for the purpose of creating a full-text searchable database is not copyright infringement, because it is a “fair use” of those works that is protected by copyright law. Providing individuals with print disabilities full digital access to those copyrighted works — text and images — is also “fair use” under the Copyright Act and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Second Circuit also referenced Congress’ intent in the Americans with Disabilities Act to “‘assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency’” for individuals with disabilities.
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust (2nd Cir, 2013) PDF (683.99 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	6/5/2013
COPAA joined several other organizations today in filing an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust. The brief emphasized the policy reasons in federal law for affirming the district court decision that creation of digital copies of copyrighted works in nonprofit university libraries constituted fair use of the works under 17 U.S.C.S. § 107 since the use for scholarship and research was transformative with purposes of superior search capabilities rather than actual access to the copyrighted works, and facilitating access for print-disabled persons. Jo Anne Simon of Jo Anne Simon, P.C., with the help of Mary J. Goodwin and Amy F. Robertson, authored the brief. COPAA Amicus Committee members Leslie Margolis, Victoria Sulerzyski and Selene Almazan assisted with revisions.
BD v. DC (DC Cir, 2015) PDF (294.6 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	8/11/2015
COPAA and Children's Law Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief on July 13, 2015 in the case: BD v. DC. COPAA member Diana Savit is the attorney for the parents. The Appellants' brief is here. The amicus brief offered guidance to the Court on the appropriate mechanism or procedure to enforce a favorable hearing officer decision (HOD) that parents received at the lower level. Amici support the protection of all procedural and substantive rights afforded parents under the IDEA. The amici urge the court to follow the plain language of the IDEA in overturning the lower court’s finding that it had no jurisdiction to enforce a favorable and final HOD. Exhausting the detailed due process procedures set forth in the plain language of the IDEA is complex, costly and time-consuming for families of children with disabilities.
Bd. of Educ. of the North Rockland (2nd Cir, 2017) PDF (96.24 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	11/28/2017
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Second Circuit, Bd. of Educ. of the North Rockland Central Sch. Dist. v. C.M., et al.,on November 22, 2017. Selene Almazan, Catherine Merino Reisman and Ellen Saideman drafted the brief on behalf of COPAA, Catherine Merino Reisman filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. The parent is represented by Marion Walsh, Littman Krooks, LLP. Amicus supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling calculating the parents’ statute of limitations to bar all the Section 504 claims, even those that occurred within the three years prior (three years is New York statute specific) to the filing of the request for a due process hearing on January 9, 2015.
D.L. v. District of Columbia (DC Cir, 2016) PDF (623.54 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	1/24/2017
COPAA, along with AARP, AARP FOUNDATION, NATIONAL FEDERATION FOR THE BLIND, NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK, THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, AND THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVILRIGHTS UNDER THE LAW filed an amicus brief on December 8, 2016 in D.L. v. District of Columbia, et. al. AARP Foundation Litigation filed the brief on behalf of amici. Selene Almazan drafted and edited the brief on behalf of COPAA. Margaret Kohn, COPAA member, began the litigation, and continues to represent the Plaintiffs along with BRUCE J. TERRIS, CAROLYN SMITH PRAVLIK, TODD A. GLUCKMAN, PATRICK A. SHELDON, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP.
Dallas ISD v. Michelle Woody (5th Cir, 2016) PDF (275.69 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	2/17/2017
COPAA submitted an amicus brief in the 5th Circuit, Dallas Independent School District v. Michelle Woody, as next friend of KW in late November 2016. Roy Atwood, COPAA member represents the parent; Selene Almazan and Catherine Merino Reisman drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. Alexis Casillas assisted in editing and drafting. The brief supports the Parents, and urges the Court to uphold the District Court’s ruling that Dallas Independent School District (DISD) failed to timely provide a free appropriate public education to K.W. as well as the finding that the failure to file to defend its assessment waives any defense it may have to the parent’s entitlement to an IEE at public expense through the provider of her choosing. The failure to make a timely offer of an IEP has a substantive impact on the student if the student’s education within the school district “would have been different if school officials had fulfilled their statutory responsibilities on time.”
Decision, Price et al v. DC (2015) PDF (58.4 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	6/30/2015
The D.C. Court of Appeals issued a decision on June 25th, Price v. DC, affirming the rights of families to secure counsel. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed with the parent and COPAA’s Amicus positions and determined that the fee shifting provisions apply to court appointed attorneys in the D.C. Superior Court system and payment through the court appointed panel does not bar attorneys from utilizing the fee shifting statute at a prevailing rate for representation on behalf of families who otherwise could not afford to retain counsel.
Decision: Quatro v. Tehachapi (9th Cir, 2018) PDF (169.48 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	11/27/2018
On November 19, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Charis Quatro v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist. affirming the award of the attorney’s fees on behalf of the parent as the prevailing party. The parent was represented by Andrea Marcus, a longtime COPAA member; Selene Almazan, Alexis Casillas, Catherine Merino Reisman and Ellen Saideman drafted and edited the amicus brief for filing.
Doe v. Cape Elizabeth (1 Cir, May, 2015) PDF (123.53 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	5/15/2015
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 1st Circuit Doe v. Cape Elizabeth, this week. COPAA member, Richard O'Meara, represents the family. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act a student qualifies for special education services under the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) category if she meets two basic criteria, both found in the IDEA’s regulations. First, there must be evidence that the child “does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or fails to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight listed areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child's age or State-approved grade-level standards.” In this case, it was Jane Doe’s reading fluency skills that were implicated in one of the eight areas of disability. However, under the IDEA regulations a deficit in just one area is enough for Jane to be classified as needing specialized instruction: special education. Second, although federal courts may d
Dowler v. CloverPark SD, Washington, Aug2011 PDF (771.67 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/27/2012
Favorable opinion from Washington Supreme Court, holding that state law tort claims are not subject to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement.The court stated “[n]othing in this opinion prevents Appellants from requesting an IDEA due-process hearing to address those matters that are appropriate for an IDEA hearing officer to review while simultaneously seeking relief in court for their claims of tort and unlawful discrimination. An IDEA hearing officer will be able to address how Appellants will be treated in the future with respect to such issues as classroom discipline and the facilitation of movement. Only the court, however, is able to remedy past actions that constitute torts or unlawful discrimination.” (Emphasis added). The court mentions there is no federal preemption of state law claims and overturned the summary judgment opinion finding material questions of fact to be tried by a jury as to whether the torts and discrimination were committed.(See below for COPAA brief)
Ebonie S. v. Pueblo SD 60, 10th Cir, Sept2011 PDF (238.3 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/27/2012
Case No. 09-cv-00858-WJM-MEH): COPAA filed an amicus brief in this case in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a student who was regularly restrained in a wrap-around desk. COPAA argued the use of this restraint desk with Ebonie S. was unacceptable under all but emergency circumstances because it served no pedagogical purpose and failed to meet any accepted professional standards. Further, Defendants’ frequent restraint of Ebonie S. using a wraparound desk with restraint bar deprived her of her fundamental right to liberty and freedom from physical restraint in violation of her Constitutional right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, the district court had erred in comparing Ebonie S. to other children with disabilities rather than all students for purposes of its equal protection analysis. Baker & McKenzie pro bono attorneys drafted the amicus brief. Leslie Seid Margolis, Andrew Feinstein, Catherine Merino Reisman reviewed.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County (Supreme Ct, 2016) PDF (112.43 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	11/21/2016
Supreme Court asked to decide: “What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with a free and appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. COPAA files brief with CHADD and CAPCA asserting the following standard: A child “benefits from” instruction when the services target all areas of educational need in order to ensure achievement consistent with non-disabled peers in the general education curriculum so as to enable students to be prepared for post-school activities.
F.C., et al. v. Tennessee DOE (6th Cir, 2017) PDF (271.32 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	11/21/2017
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Sixth Circuit, F.C., et al. v. Tennessee Department of Education on November 16, 2017. Selene Almazan, Jessica Salonus, and Ellen Saideman assisted in the drafting along with fellow COPAA member, Judith Gran, who filed the brief in the Sixth Circuit. Amicus supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling that parents who obtained a final order dismissing their due process complaint did not satisfy IDEA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and remand the case to the district court for a decision on the merits. COPAA further urges the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s Ligonier approach to calculating the statute of limitations and apply the “discovery rule” to parents’ IDEA claims rather than simply time-barring claims that preceded two years prior to the date of the parents’ due process complaint filing.
F.H. v. Memphis City DECISION (6th Cir,2014) PDF (93.79 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/4/2014
September 4, 2014 - the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a great precedential opinion favoring families' rights to seek relief for non-educational injuries and to enforce settlement agreements in the case F.H. et. al. v. Memphis City School (6th Cir, 2013). In December of 2013 COPAA filed amici in this case of along with the Disability Law and Advocacy Center of Tennessee, The Arc Tennessee, the Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services, Support and Training for Exceptional Parents, Tennessee Voices for Children, Inc., and People First of Tennessee.
Fry v. Napoleon (Supreme Ct, 2016) PDF (376.64 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/7/2016
COPAA and the Advocates for Children of New York (AFC) filed an amicus brief on August 29, 2016 in support of Stacy Fry, Brent Fry and the minor child E.F. At issue is the refusal of Napoleon Community Schools to allow E.F. to bring her service dog to school, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The reason given to the family was that the provision of E.F.’s one on one assistant satisfied its obligations to E.F. under a completely different statute: IDEA. When E.F. and her family brought suit under the ADA and Section 504, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the family should first have sought relief under the IDEA and exhausted administrative remedies through the IDEA. IDEA is a very different statute from ADA and Section 504.
G.M. v. Drycreek Joint Elem, 9th Cir, June2011 PDF (66.9 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	10/11/2012
COPAA signed onto brief with Disability Rights Education Defense Fund (DREDF), Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and Disability Rights California, addressing whether the district court properly granted a school district’s motion to evade the requirements of stay-put by discontinuing the use of a private provider. The district court relied on narrow exceptions to stay-put, which the district court inflated to swallow the rule: (1) an exception regarding placements that are “temporary,” which the district court extended to define placements subject to review after one year, and (2) an exception on the basis that certain changes involving the provider do not change the educational placement, which the district court extended to hold that any change involving the provider does not fall within the meaning of changes to the “current educational placement” under section 1415(j). The brief was written by Anna Levine from DRA. Andrew Feinstein and Selene Almazan reviewed.
I>Z.M. v Rosemount (8th Cir., 2016) PDF (617.77 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	7/26/2016
COPAA filed an Amicus brief in the 8th Circuit in the case I.Z.M. by and through his parents and natural guardians, T.M. and L.M. v. ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 196; ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN SCHOOL BOARD. COPAA members Amy Goetz and Andrea Jepsen represent the family. Catherine Merino Reisman, Alexis Casillas , Selene Almazan and Judith Gran drafted the brief. Judith Gran, a member of the 8th circuit, filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. I.Z.M. is blind and cannot use printed educational material and must rely on accessible instructional material and assistive technology in order to access the high school curriculum. Having lost below at the administrative proceedings under IDEA, the family filed an original complaint in US District Court challenging the administrative decision and raising de novo claims under Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court, based upon a mischaracterization of I.Z.M.
J.K and J.C. v. Missoula County PS (9th Cir, 2017) PDF (255.24 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	2/27/2017
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, J.K and J.C., and K.K.-R. v. Missoula County Public Schools, on February 17, 2017 in support of the Appellants (parents and the minor child). Joining COPAA in the filing was Disability Rights Montana (DRM) as amici. For nearly 30 years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the IDEA broadly and advanced the position that Congress, in enacting the statute, did not intend to create a right without a meaningful remedy. See Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009); Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). Here the district court erred by failing to assess when the parents knew or should have known that K.K.-R. had a qualifying disability under IDEA and that she needed special education. These are the elements of K.K.-R's child find cause of action. The plain language of the statute makes clear that IDEA's statute of limitations starts to run when the parents knew or should have known about the facts which give rise
J.M. v Matayoshi & Hawaii DOE (9th, 2017) PDF (418.36 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	4/4/2017
COPAA submitted an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit, J.M. v. Kathryn S. Matayoshi & State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ. on March 31, 2017. Pro bono counsel from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan wrote the brief for COPAA, Attorneys Bruce H. Schneider, Michele Palmer and Joel Dodge. Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman assisted with drafting and editing. Robert C. Thurston, COPAA member, represents the family. The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) joined COPAA as amici. Brief supports the parent and student urging reversal of the District Court’s decision because the school district failed in its obligation to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when it did not take adequate steps to prevent bullying of the student who had been subjected to severe bullying and was still suffering from that experience. COPAA’s amicus brief provided important background & academic information concerning the negative consequences from bullying of students with disabilities.
J.T. v. Dumont, NJ Discrict Court, April2011 PDF (1.37 MB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	10/9/2012
COPAA filed an amicus brief on least restrictive environment issues in a case pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Larry Berger of Shephard, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP drafted the brief on behalf of COPAA. Selene Almazan and Catherine Reisman assisted in the drafting.
Jay F., et.al. v. William Hart USD (9th Cir, 2018) PDF (407.79 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	10/24/2018
Manifestation Determinations Are an Important Defense for Children with Emotional Disturbance. COPAA and fellow amici, The California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy (CAPCA), filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amici Curiae Brief in the Ninth Circuit, Jay F., et. al. v. William Hart Union School District, on October 18, 2018. Jay F. and A.F., are represented by COPAA members, Ben Conway, Disability Rights California and Mayra Lira, Public Counsel. Kevin Golembiewski, Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman drafted the amici brief, Alexis Casillas, Roberta Savage and Maureen Graves, on behalf of CAPCA, assisted in the drafting and edits.
JD v. NYDOE (2nd Circuit, 2016) PDF (20.25 MB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	4/8/2016
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the case: JD v. NYDOE in the 2nd Circuit on April 6, 2016. COPAA member Caroline Heller represents the appellants-parents. The brief was written by attorneys from Morrison & Foerster, New York Office. Attorneys Carl Loewnson, Jr., Michael B. Miller and Srarah L. Prutzman wrote the brief for COPAA. Catherine Merino Reisman, Alexis Casillas and Selene Almazan participated in the editing. The brief focuses on the deference due to hearing officer decisions. The amount of deference that the district court must give to the administrative decisions of the SRO and IHO varies depending on the “persuasiveness” of those decisions. M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 244 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 99 F.2d 1083, 1086-87 (1st Cir. 1993)). Decisions that are “grounded in thorough and logical reasoning should be provided more deference than decisions that are not.” Id.
JEFFERSON BdEd v. PhillipAngie C,11th Cir, Feb2012 PDF (241.67 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	9/27/2012
On February 21, 2012 COPAA filed the Amicus brief in this case regarding IEEs in support of the parents, Appellees, represented by Deb Mattison, COPAA member. As Amicus, COPAA’s interest is to offer this Court its experience on the IEE issue including the use of publicly-funded IEEs in the provision of FAPE, aiding in the protection of the rights of children with disabilities. The IEE provides an essential balance in the parent-school relationship to ensure FAPE by permitting input from independent professionals. COPAA members understand that publicly-funded IEEs have brought to bear necessary expertise and researched-based scientific practices for children and generally enhanced parent-school collaboration. COPAA also has insight into other issues this appeal raises including “collaborative federalism” of the IDEA, the doctrine that has led all of the states in the Eleventh Circuit to adopt longstanding regulations permitting publicly-funded IEEs. Many thanks to Jonathan Zimring, COP
Jefferson v. Bryan M, Darcy M. (11th Cir., 2017) PDF (418.38 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	4/4/2017
COPAA submitted an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit, Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Bryan M., Darcy M., individually and as parents guardians, next friends and legal representative of R.M., a minor on March 23, 2017. Selene Almazan, Ellen Saideman, and Alice K. Nelson drafted and filed the brief for COPAA in support of the parents, Appellees. Gina Stivahtis Lowe, COPAA member, represents the family. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to uphold the district court’s ruling that the parents are entitled to attorneys’ fees for the work done both to secure the favorable rulings in the final due process decision and also for the work entailed in obtaining an order requiring the Jefferson County Board of Education (Board) to comply with the mandate of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), known as the “stay-put” requirement.
John Doe v. BOE of PG County (4th Cir, 12-17-15) PDF (861.61 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	1/19/2015
4th Circuit, John Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George's County - On December 17, 2014 the 4th Circuit accepted COPAA's Amicus brief in the case John Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George's County. In a tragic case of a student's peer on peer sexual assaults , the District Court’s overly-narrow interpretation of the deliberate indifference standard under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”) disregarded established precedent, and frustrated the important national interest of providing safe schools for all students and eliminating discrimination and bullying in our nation’s schools. COPAA argued that a school district cannot escape liability merely by responding, notwithstanding the likelihood that the response will not be effective. In considering the circumstances, COPAA argued that courts appropriately consider Agency guidance and research on what practices are likely to combat bullying.
Johnson v. United States, D.C. Cir, Sept2011 PDF (64.6 KB) [ more ] [ hide ]	Administration	10/11/2012
COPAA assisted NDRN, Professor Joseph Tulman of the University of DC Law School, Morrison & Forster, and other advocates on this brief. M. Johnson is IDEA-eligible. DC sentencing law obligates a judge at sentencing to: ensure community safety and the educational needs of the defendant; designate facility to place defendant. At sentencing in two felony cases, Johnson’s counsel argued the sentencing judges were obligated to ensure that he would be incarcerated in a facility where he could receive appropriate special education services. Under the 1997 D.C. Revitalization Act, D.C. inmates charged and convicted of felonies are uniformly placed in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which does not consider itself bound by the requirements of the IDEA. The brief argued that the court should rehear the case to give meaning to requirements of DC sentencing law. COPAA members, Catherine Merino Reisman and Judith Gran wrote the brief for amici. Andrew Feinstein and Selene Almazan reviewed.

	Edit This Favorite
Name:
Category:
Share:	Yes No, Keep Private

Edit This Favorite

COPAA Amicus Briefs