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
Gary S. Feinerman argues that the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) prohibit tuition reimbursement for students who are unilaterally placed in private school without first having received special education services from the public school district.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the legal question is whether IDEA requires that a public school district provide a free appropriate public education before a student can receive tuition reimbursement for a private school placement.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Forest Grove School District
According to Gary S. Feinerman, the 1997 amendments prohibit tuition reimbursement awards for students who are unilaterally placed in private school without first having received special education services from the public school district.
According to Mr. Feinerman, the statutory scheme requires that reimbursement be awarded only under the conditions set out in subsection (C)(ii), reflecting Congress’s intent.
According to Mr. Feinerman, regulations do not give hearing officers the authority to award tuition reimbursement in these circumstances.
Respondent – T.A.
According to David B. Salmons, a ten‑day notice period is required before a child can be removed from the public school system.
According to David B. Salmons, subsection (C)(i) provides the general rule that governs payment of private school tuition when the parents place the child unilaterally.
According to Salmon, the Carter case and the regulations support the district court’s authority to award tuition reimbursement when the public school fails to provide an adequate education.
According to United States, amicus brief argues that if the district failed to provide an adequate special education, the district court has discretion to award private‑school tuition reimbursement.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts concluded the argument by stating, “The case is submitted.”
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The Federal Government reimburses roughly 10 %–12 % of the additional costs of educating children with special needs.
Equitable considerations support paying tuition reimbursement when a district fails to provide an adequate education.
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.
- 450f6b4f2745d2bb55d5-r1-870bb9c4443f6cd9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.