Home | Directory | Contact Us | Sign In | Join Us
Amicus Briefs
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. 

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 the link below for instructions on how to submit a request for Amicus, or for Technical Assistance.
amicus request
scales of justice
Search Our Amicus Database
Search»

Most Recent Briefs

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
COPAA and several other advocacy groups filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a family of child with disabilities, urging the Court to hear the case A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. In this case, the family has petitioned the Court to take up their case and reverse the decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit earlier this year on their claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. At the heart of this case is the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard applied by several circuit courts of appeals to ADA and 504 claims brought by families of children who are also eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Since 1982, the Eighth Circuit has required families to prove that school districts acted with intent—specifically, bad faith or gross misjudgment—in discriminating against IDEA-eligible students in order to prevail on ADA and 504 claims. This very high standard does not apply to claims brought by plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination in other contexts with respect to colleges, other public entities under Title II, or public accommodations under Title III of the ADA. Joining COPAA on the brief are the National Center for Youth Law, National Disability Rights Network, Learning Rights Law Center, and Education Law Center.  .
open Brief
Davis v. District of Columbia (USSC, April 2024) - 04/23/2024
On March 27, 2024 COPAA and Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc. filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States urging it to grant certiorari in the case Davis v. District of Columbia following a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly undermined the important “stay put” right for students with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides hat students have the right to “stay put” in their current educational placement during the pendency of a dispute between parents and school districts regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In the brief, COPAA and its fellow amicus, Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc., argued first that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling conflicts with Congress’s intent to provide broad protections to students with disabilities and to prevent disruption to their education during FAPE disputes.
open Brief
Alex W. v. Poudre SD R-1 (10th Cir, April 2024) - 04/23/2024
COPAA filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Alex W. v. Poudre School District R-1 . The brief was submitted in support of the family of a child with disabilities who filed a petition for a rehearing or rehearing en banc following the Tenth Circuit panel’s decision limiting parents of children with disabilities to one independent educational evaluation (IEE) by just one professional in one area when the parents disagree with multiple evaluations conducted by the child’s school district. COPAA argued that the right to IEEs is a critical parental right under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the purpose of ensuring that children with disabilities have access to comprehensive evaluations in all areas of disability or need.
open brief


Notable Briefs

Perez v. Sturgis PS (USSC, 2022) - 11/16/2022
Twelve national organizations led by the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), filed an amicus brief in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools which asks the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to protect students with disabilities and ensure that students are able to use civil rights remedies. Together, in support of the plaintiff Miguel Perez, the twelve national policy and legal advocacy organizations argue that: Students with disabilities are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies to bring non-IDEA civil rights claims. The IDEA protects a student’s right and the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures as a preferred method for resolving IDEA claims. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit significantly undermines both the IDEA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and places IDEA plaintiffs in an unnecessary and untenable position of having to litigate.

Decision: Perez V. Sturgis March 21, 2023
IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not preclude Mr. Perez’s ADA lawsuit because the relief he seeks (i.e., compensatory damages) is not something IDEA can provide. Pp. 3–8.
open brief
Fry v. Napoleon (Supreme Ct, 2016) - 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.

Decision: Fry V. Napolean The Supreme Court reversed, holding that exhaustion was unnecessary where the suit was not about the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
open brief
Endrew F. v. Douglas County (Supreme Ct, 2016) - 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. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court, which held that the inquiry into whether an IEP is reasonably calculated to allow a child to make progress is necessarily an intensive, fact-specific one and therefore neither the Court nor the statute could create a substantive standard. This requirement is substantially more than the “de minimus” benefit that the school district argued was all it was required to provide. An IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable each child to make progress appropriate for that child’s circumstances.

Decision: Endrew F. v Douglas County (Sup., 2016)
open brief
Search Amicus Brief Database
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

COPAA

P.O. Box 6767
Towson, Maryland 21285

      


COPAA is a tax-exempt 501 (c)3 Corporation, Federal ID# 65-0877085
Donations made to COPAA are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.