Like the cherry blossoms in Washington D.C., written opinions appear at this point in the High Court's term. In the last month, SCOTUS issued two unanimous opinions that greatly assist disadvantaged students obtain free and appropriate public education.

The first case, from Michigan, involves a service dog named Wonder; our associate, Laura Nieusma, set the stage in her post from last June when SCOTUS first granted certiorari. The other case, from Colorado, significantly bolsters the rights of millions of learning disabled students in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

In the case of Wonder, the parents of a kindergartner wanted their daughter, who has cerebral palsy, to attend school with her service dog. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when families bring federal actions under the Americans With Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act, they need not jump through the administrative hoops of the more complex Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The Michigan school district asserted that the student's human aide could do everything the service dog could do and more. Respondents also argued that the dog was a significant distraction to the other students.

A motion for summary judgment filed by the school, asserting that the parents were limited to the administrative procedures of the IDE, was granted; the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Justice Elena Kagan authored the opinion, reversing the Sixth Circuit on technical procedural grounds and remanding the case to the trial court. On remand, the Supreme Court sought clarification as to whether the family availed themselves of any available administrative remedies. Not a complete win, but much better than the slap in the face the family received by the trial court.

At this point, however, the continued legal battle is a matter of principle for the family. The girl has moved-on through her elementary education, presumably without the aid of her service dog, while this case has made its way to the SCOTUS.

In the Colorado case, Chief Justice Roberts held that schools are required to offer special education programs that meet higher standards. The unanimous ruling held that minimal instruction for disabled students is insufficient; programs must be designed to allow students to progress academically, despite their learning disabilities.

The case arose when the parents of an autistic teenager sued, claiming their son's school did not provide a sufficient curriculum to foster academic progress. Under the federal IDE, a free and appropriate public education is required.

Chief Justice Roberts' opinion held that while deference is granted to school administrators to fashion specific special needs programs, those programs must be, "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances."

Fall-out from the unanimous opinion was rather immediate; showing-up the very day the opinion was announced. Judge Neal Gorsuch was questioned about the new higher standard during his Senate confirmation hearing; the higher standard replaces a lower standard that Judge Gorsuch adopted in an earlier similar case and that was favored by the Trump Administration's controversial Education Secretary Betsy Devos.

Moving forward, programs designed to foster mere de minimus progress from year to year will be subject to claims under the IDE. This is good for the underdogs who need to progress and thrive within the framework of our free appropriate public education.

Post #583
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Today, the last day of the term, the SCOTUS announced its 6-2 decision in Voisine v United States which expanded a federal firearm prohibition to include crimes of domestic violence. The consolidated cases, from Maine in the 1st Circuit, tested the scope of the longstanding "felon in possession" laws that disqualify convicted felons from possessing firearms.

Domestic violence is a misdemeanor in Maine as it is here in Michigan and in the majority of states. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion, focusing on the definition of mens rea and the "use of force". The Court expressly adopted the Model Penal Code definitions of the criminal mental state, expanding that definition to include reckless conduct.

This case once again pits the ever-roving intersection between federal and state laws. Mr. Voisine's state law conviction of domestic violence was the predicate to the federal firearm charge; a charge based on a 1996 extension of the federal firearm prohibition.

In Voisine's case, while on probation for a domestic assault, the state learned he possessed a rifle. His ineligibility to do so led to federal charges. In a very well-written opinion, Justice Kagan illustrates examples of a reckless mens rea in the domestic relations context.

When a spouse throws a plate against a wall in anger near the other spouse, for example, the mens rea is reckless. And this is enough to render someone convicted of such a misdemeanor ineligible to possess a firearm.

An interesting dimension to the case is Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent raising a Second Amendment constitutional issue that was not briefed in the case. [Note: this was the case where Justice Thomas asked questions during oral argument for the first time in over a decade.] Justice Thomas asserted that the Second Amendment is treated "cavalierly" when this right -the right to bear arms- can be lost for a lifetime due to a "reckless misdemeanor conviction".

Post #546

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com