October Term 2007 · Docket 06-637

Can a school district deny a child a proper public placement and refuse to pay for private school tuition?

A family seeks tuition reimbursement after the district failed to provide a suitable public education for a child with a disability.

Official caption
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child
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. Koerner argued the 1985 decision relied on broad remedial clauses in federal law.

    Mr. Gardephe stated IDEA authorizes tuition reimbursement when a child is denied a proper public education.

    Mr. Garre contended the district cannot refuse both a proper public placement and private tuition payment.

    Mr. Koerner clarified the law is a funding grant, not a constitutional requirement.

    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 whether a school district must pay for private school tuition when it fails to provide a free and appropriate public education.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 1, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The district wants to avoid paying for the private school placement.

The family wants the district to reimburse the private school tuition.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The district argues the family must first accept a public placement, even if inadequate.

The family argues the district must pay for private school when it fails to provide a proper public education.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if the outcome changes if the child attended public school for only eleven days.

Justice Scalia questioned whether the advocate added new elements to the legal question.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines whether school districts can deny proper public education and refuse to fund private alternatives for disabled students.

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