Special-education law rests on a handful of Supreme Court decisions that define what schools owe children with disabilities and what parents can do when schools fall short. You do not need to be a lawyer to benefit from knowing them — each one is a tool you can point to. Here is a plain-English tour of the landmark cases.
Defining FAPE
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) was the first Supreme Court case interpreting the special-education law. It held that schools must provide an IEP "reasonably calculated" to give "some educational benefit" — establishing that FAPE is a floor of opportunity, not a guarantee of the best possible services.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County (2017) raised that floor. The Court held an IEP must be "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances" — meaningfully more than trivial advancement. It is the standard schools are held to today.
Discipline and 'stay put'
Honig v. Doe (1988) held that schools cannot expel or indefinitely exclude students for behavior related to their disabilities, and enforced IDEA's "stay put" rule keeping a child in their placement during disputes. It is the root of the modern 10-day and manifestation-determination protections.
Private-school reimbursement
Burlington v. Department of Education (1985) established that parents can be reimbursed for private-school tuition when the public school denied FAPE and the private placement was appropriate.
Florence County v. Carter (1993) added that reimbursement is available even if the private school is not state-approved, so long as it met the child's needs.
Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2009) extended reimbursement to children who had never previously received special education from the public school.
Proof, parents, and services
Schaffer v. Weast (2005) held that the burden of proof in a due-process hearing falls on the party bringing the challenge — usually the parents.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District (2007) confirmed that parents have their own enforceable rights under IDEA and can pursue a case in court without a lawyer.
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1999) held that schools must provide related services — even continuous, one-on-one nursing care — needed for a child to attend school, as long as they are not medical services requiring a physician.
Getting to court
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) clarified when parents must first exhaust the IDEA hearing process before suing under other disability laws — required when the heart of the claim is a denial of FAPE.
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (2023) held that a family seeking compensatory damages under the ADA — a remedy IDEA does not provide — need not fully exhaust the IDEA process first, opening a clearer path to damages claims.
Why they matter to you
These decisions are not just history. When a school lowballs an IEP, cite Endrew F. When it threatens expulsion for disability-related behavior, cite Honig. When it denies FAPE and you place your child privately, the Burlington/Carter line is your remedy. Knowing the cases turns a vague sense that something is wrong into a specific, named right.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. The core rights here come from federal law, but timelines, procedures, and state protections vary, and every child's situation is different. Talk to a special-education attorney or your state's parent training and information center about your situation.
Free tools for parents
Self-help tools to act on the steps above — private, and nothing you enter leaves your browser:
Special-education letter generator — request an evaluation, an IEP meeting, an IEE, or records, or give 10-day private-placement notice.
What is the most important special-education case?
Endrew F. v. Douglas County (2017) is the key modern case defining FAPE: an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances — more than trivial. It raised the older Rowley (1982) standard.
What case protects disabled students from expulsion?
Honig v. Doe (1988) held that schools cannot expel or indefinitely exclude students for disability-related behavior and enforced IDEA's 'stay put' rule. It is the foundation of today's 10-day and manifestation-determination protections.
Which cases allow private-school tuition reimbursement?
Burlington v. Department of Education (1985) established reimbursement when the public school denied FAPE and the private placement was appropriate. Carter (1993) allowed it even for non-state-approved schools, and Forest Grove (2009) extended it to children who never received public special education.
Can parents sue a school without exhausting the IDEA process?
It depends. Fry v. Napoleon (2017) requires exhaustion when the core of the claim is a denial of FAPE. Perez v. Sturgis (2023) held that ADA compensatory-damages claims do not require full IDEA exhaustion.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and may not reflect the most current law or the law in your jurisdiction. Laws vary by state and change over time. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.
Knowing your rights is the first step
Join thousands committing to calmly and consistently exercise their constitutional rights.
