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 Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case from the Sixth Circuit (No. 21‑887).
Miguel Luna Perez, a deaf student, attended schools in the Sturgis Public School District and alleged that the district provided unqualified or absent sign‑language aides.
The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background and question before the Court
Miguel Luna Perez alleged that Sturgis provided inadequate sign‑language aides, raising issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
What each side argues
Petitioner (Sturgis Public Schools)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Mr. Martinez (representing Sturgis)
According to Mr. Martinez, martinez argues that a global settlement is preferable, but a partial settlement that only addresses IDEA claims would force Miguel to reject the settlement, lose immediate FAPE relief, and risk further litigation.
According to Mr. Martinez, martinez asserts that refusing to give up ADA claims would make settlement ineffective.
Mr. Yang
According to Mr. Yang, yang states that the hearing officer would dismiss the ADA claim.
Mr. Dvoretzky
According to Mr. Dvoretzky, dvoretzky argues that Congress intended exhaustion procedures for FAPE claims under the IDEA.
According to Mr. Dvoretzky, dvoretzky suggests the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional.
Roman Martinez (Petitioner)
According to Roman Martinez (Petitioner), according to Roman Martinez (Petitioner), roman Martinez argues that if Sturgis refuses to settle, Miguel would have to reject the settlement, lose immediate FAPE relief, and risk losing attorneys’ fees.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts introduced the case.
Justice Thomas asked if any ADA claim could avoid exhaustion.
Justice Alito asked whether the gravamen of the complaint is the denial of a FAPE.
Justice Alito asked whether a straight ADA claim could proceed if the IDEA were not applicable.
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Why it matters
According to United States, the United States filed an amicus brief urging reversal, underscoring the case’s significance for the interaction between IDEA exhaustion rules and ADA claims.
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.
- 2a448b05d21ff9a9912c-r1-2122362beae66d73.pdfopinion
- 37ec91bc045838dd24be-r1-05ebdebb8d96d463.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.