LoboVault Home

Removing Remedies, Removing Rights; the Future of 1983 Claims for Violations of the IDEA in the Wake of Gonzaga v. Doe

LoboVault

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1928/2587

Removing Remedies, Removing Rights; the Future of 1983 Claims for Violations of the IDEA in the Wake of Gonzaga v. Doe

Show full item record

Title: Removing Remedies, Removing Rights; the Future of 1983 Claims for Violations of the IDEA in the Wake of Gonzaga v. Doe
Author: Toponce, Eric
Subject: Supreme Court Decisions
Gonzaga v. Doe
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Laws
Public Education
Disability Law
Statutory Violations
Circuit Court Decisions
1983 Claims
Abstract: Congress signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") into law with the express intent that individuals with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education that is designed to meet their individual needs. In circumstances where parents believe the limited scope of remedies construed to be available under the IDEA is inadequate: the use of 42 U.S.C. 1983 ("Section 1983"); among other laws: has garnered special appeal. The courts, however, have split on the issue of whether 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is available to plaintiffs seeking to allege a statutory violation of the IDEA. This Note will explore whether Section 1983 is available under the IDEA and to what extent a recent Supreme Court decision, Gonzaga v. Doe, may influence the current circuit court split on the issue. Part I provides a brief overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and its nexus with the current controversy over whether a claim for a violation of the IDEA may be made under Section 1983. Part II discusses the various decisions reached by the circuit courts in addressing this question. Part III examines 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the treatment it has received by the Supreme Court up and through its decision in Blessing v. Freestone. Part IV analyzes a frequently litigated IDEA provision in light of the Supreme Court's Section 1983 jurisprudence and concludes that Section 1983 is available to plaintiffs suing for statutory violations of the IDEA. Part V evaluates the circuit court decisions that have found Section 1983 to be unavailable and discusses possible analytical errors these courts may have made in reaching their decisions. Part VI considers the holdings of the latest Section 1983 Supreme Court case, Gonzaga v. Doe, and the possible significance this decision may have in directing future decisions regarding the applicability of Section 1983 for violations of the IDEA. Finally, part VII concludes that, although Section 1983 should have been readily perceived by the circuits as available to plaintiffs suing upon statutory violations of the IDEA prior to Gonzaga, that decision now casts doubt onto this conclusion.
Date: 2005
Description: 44 p. ; An outstanding student paper selected as a Honors Paper.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1928/2587


Files in this item

Files Size Format View
ToponceEricPages30 to 44.pdf 2.201Mb PDF View/Open
ToponceEricPages15 to 29.pdf 2.252Mb PDF View/Open
ToponceEricPages1 to 14.pdf 2.239Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record

UNM Libraries

Search LoboVault


Browse

My Account