October Term 2005 · Docket 05-18

Do IDEA costs include expert witness fees?

Parents seek expert fees. The district opposes this award.

Official caption
Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
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.

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. Kuntz argued for a clear rule.

    He said the statute imposes a certain obligation.

    He urged the Court not to expand fees.

    Mr. Vladeck argued the text authorizes expert costs.

    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 tests statutory text. It defines recoverable costs.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 19, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The district wants to limit costs to attorneys' fees.

The parents want to recover expert witness fees.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The district argues the statute excludes expert fees.

The parents argue the statute includes expert fees.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked about consultant hours.

Justice Breyer questioned the word costs' meaning.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This defines school district financial liability. It shapes special education litigation costs.

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