Opinion of the Court Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

justice william rehnquist wrote majority.

on june 28, 1982 court handed down 6-3 decision in favor of petitioners. justice william rehnquist wrote majority, justice byron white writing principle dissent joined justices william brennan, jr. , thurgood marshall. court answered 2 questions: meant act s requirement of free appropriate public education ? , role of state , federal courts in exercising review granted 20 u.s.c. § 1415?

the court held both district , appeals courts wrong in contention intent of law provide handicapped children s full potentials rather give them access. overruled district court s finding act not define appropriate education , justice rehnquist quoting text of statute itself: term free appropriate public education means special education , related services followed further definitions of terms. instead, text of legislation , legislative intent show purpose of law not allow each child achieve full potential, provide sufficient resources handicapped children access education. rehnquist pointed text of act creating prioritization of how resources allocated: states receiving money under act must provide education handicapped priority, first handicapped children not receiving education , second handicapped children . . . severe handicaps receiving inadequate education. in concurrence, justice blackmun disagreed majority s finding of legislative intent, quoting previous concurrence in pennhurst state school v. halderman: seems plain me congress, in enacting statute, intended more merely set out politically self-serving meaningless language handicapped deserve @ hands of state authorities. agreed final judgement of court, however, he, majority, believed district court should not have prescribed own remedy should have given greater deference did findings of school district s impartial hearing officer , state s commissioner of education .

they next tackled question of role of courts in judicial review process. under act, parents provided civil cause of action in courts when other administrative appeals exhausted. court rejected petitioners contention right judicial review applied procedural review of administrative appeals , whether decision based on sufficient evidence. likewise stopped short of de novo review rowleys had advocated allow courts prescribe particular educational methods district court had. rather, majority held court must assess 2 question: first, has state complied procedures set forth in act? , second, individualized educational program developed through act s procedures reasonably calculated enable child receive educational benefits? if these requirements met, state has complied obligations imposed congress, , courts can require no more. quoting san antonio independent school district v. rodriguez, court reiterated judicial branch lacks expertise resolve persistent , difficult questions of educational policy.