Interesting case regarding mootness and jurisdiction

District of Columbia v. Doe (D.C. Cir. 2010): This case has been litigated for years. It is ostensibly about the suspension and alternative placement of a 6th grader, but the events occurred in 2004. The issue that survived was whether an IDEA hearing officer has the authority to revise district imposed discipline upon finding that an infraction is not a manifestation of a disability. The case went up and down the court system a few times over the years. Not surprisingly, the issue of mootness was raised. The Circuit Court held that the case was not moot, because it was capable of repetition while evading review. What makes this interesting is that the analysis was done without regard to the particular student in this case. The Court concluded that the District was almost certain to encounter the issue again and that it would evade review as the student seeking review of disciplinary matters is often done with school or otherwise ineligible for IDEA protections by the time the review process is concluded.

The Court recognized that a school has an obligation to provide the disciplined child with a FAPE and then concluded that an IDEA hearing officer has the authority to determine whether the District has in fact provided the disciplined child, even one for whom manifestation is not found, with a FAPE.

State agency not subject to the jurisdiction of the IHO

Chavez v. NEW MEXICO PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 10th Circuit 2010: A high functioning autistic child was home schooled for 18 months because the school district refused to address his school refusal or avoidance problems. The parent took the school to hearing and also attempted to take the state education department to hearing. The IHO ruled that there was no jurisdiction over the state agency. The state level review affirmed that decision. The district court, however, held that the IHO had jurisdiction over the state agency and that the state agency was at fault for not providing direct services to the child. The 10th Circuit reversed reasoning that the state agency was not directly involved in the provision of the child's program. It’s an interesting opinion as the Court struggles with the reality that the child had been denied an education, the role that the state is to play in such situations and the potential ramifications of holding the state responsible. The Court makes clear that there could be situations where a state agency may be held responsible for direct provision of a child's services.