Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Chad Richardson, et ux., Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of L v. Omaha School District

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 19-2058 · judgment April 27, 2020


Certiorari denied · June 28, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 13% cert probability (95% interval 8%–20%)

Before the decision, about 3.1× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a circuit split argued in the petition, and an Eighth Circuit decision below, and down for a state or local-government respondent.

Question presented

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., offers states federal funds for committing to provide a “free appropriate public education” for every child with a disability. Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 993–94 (2017). To enforce that guarantee, parents may initiate a “due process hearing” before a state or local IDEA hearing officer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A), (g). And if they are still “aggrieved” after exhausting administrative procedures, they may seek judicial review within 90 days, unless state law provides a different limitations period. Id. § 1415(i)(2)(A), (B). The IDEA also provides a separate cause of action for attorneys’ fees for parents who prevail in those administrative proceedings. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). But the IDEA contains no limitations period for prevailing parents’ attorneys’ fees actions. Given Congress’ silence, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits borrow years-long state statutes of limitations, because they analogize fees actions to independent lawsuits separate from the underlying merits of the IDEA administrative proceedings. The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, in contrast, borrow far shorter periods designed for judicial review of IDEA administrative merits decisions, because they find fees actions merely ancillary to the underlying educational dispute. The question presented is: What type of state statute of limitations should courts borrow for attorneys’ fees actions under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I)?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Shay Dvoretzky
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

For respondent
Theane Evangelis Kapur
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Jun 28 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 08 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
  3. Jun 08 2021
    Supplemental brief of petitioner Chad and Tonya Richardson, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of L filed. (Distributed)
  4. May 25 2021
    Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
  5. Jan 11 2021
    The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
  6. Dec 23 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
  7. Dec 23 2020
    Reply of petitioner Chad and Tonya Richardson, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of L filed. (Distributed)
  8. Dec 04 2020
    Brief of respondent Omaha School District in opposition filed.
  9. Oct 13 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 4, 2020.
  10. Oct 09 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 28, 2020 to December 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  11. Sep 23 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 28, 2020)