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
The case concerns whether the New York City Board of Education must reimburse a parent for private‑school tuition after the child is voluntarily removed before the administrative and court processes are completed.
According to Leonard J. Koerner, the dispute is framed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and earlier Supreme Court precedent in Burlington, which allowed relief through an impartial hearing officer or the court.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (the petitioner) seeks to avoid any reimbursement obligation for private placement.
What each side argues
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York
The petitioner argues that a school district may both refuse to provide an appropriate public placement and refuse to pay for an appropriate private placement.
According to Mr. Koerner, the petitioner contends that the reimbursement provision is a grant condition tied to IDEA compliance, not a constitutional right.
Tom F., on behalf of Gilbert F., a minor child
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
United States (Amicus Curiae)
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), according to United States (Amicus Curiae), the United States amicus argues that Congress, aware of Burlington when enacting the 1997 amendments, would not have limited or overruled Burlington’s holding.
Solicitor General
The Solicitor General contends that there is an implied repeal of the Burlington and Carter decisions.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Alito asked whether the case would be decided differently if Gilbert F. had attended the public school for 11 days.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito inquired whether the Burlington reasoning was limited to students already receiving public special education.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the statutory basis for requiring that an appropriate public education be unavailable before reimbursement.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned whether an exception exists if the school district admits it cannot serve the child.
Justice Scalia asked what meaning should be given to the statute and where it says the city will pay for a private education.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts queried whether the title of provision (C)(ii) “Reimbursement for Private School Placement” applies when the child previously attended public school.
- [1] 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdf, p. 7
- [2] 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdf, p. 22
- [4] 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdf, p. 23
- [5] 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdf, pp. 26–27
- [6] 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdf, pp. 30–32
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Courts have equitable discretion to deny reimbursement claims, meaning the outcome will affect how IDEA funding is applied to private‑school placements.
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.
- 6483b7bb7da827095dc7-r1-21c38fa5db99922f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.