October Term 2005 · Docket 04-698

Who must prove a school violated special education law?

Parents and school districts disagree on who must prove a special education plan failed.

Official caption
Schaffer v. Weast
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Hurd argued the law protects disabled children.

    Mr. Garre described the parents' private school enrollment.

    Mr. Salmons argued traditional burden rules apply here.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case asks who bears the burden of proof in special education disputes.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 5, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Parents want the school to prove the plan was appropriate.

Schools want parents to prove the plan was inappropriate.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Parents argue the law protects children from discrimination.

Schools argue traditional rules place the burden on challengers.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice O'Connor asked if states can set burden rules.

Justice Scalia asked if federal base schools are covered.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines who pays for private school tuition.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON