This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Arlington Central School District Board of Education)
According to Petitioner (Raymond G. Kuntz), according to Petitioner (Raymond G. Kuntz), the statute awarding attorney fees as part of costs should not be expanded to include expert‑witness fees.
According to Petitioner (Raymond G. Kuntz), according to Petitioner (Raymond G. Kuntz), expert fees are not attorney fees nor costs; the statute contains no reference to expert fees.
According to Mr. KUNTZ, shifting the costs of expert fees to the school district would divert scarce public resources away from the stage where parents meet with the IEP team to resolve differences.
According to Mr. Salmons, congress expected that expert‑fee awards would not be part of the attorney‑fee provision.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice ALITO, justice Alito questioned whether the language that attorney fees may be awarded as part of costs suggests that attorney fees are simply another element of costs that may be awarded.
Justice Breyer asked whether the phrase from the conference report should be read as a limitation on what Congress meant by “costs.”
Justice Scalia asked where the authorization is to pay costs that would include expert fees.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 72a98feed53886045455-r1-2f9f97030f370fb1.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.