October Term 2016 · Docket 15-827

What level of educational progress must schools provide disabled students?

Parents and the school district disagree on the required standard for student progress.

Official caption
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1
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

    Fisher argued the law requires substantial educational opportunities.

    Katyal argued the Spending Clause requires unambiguous standards.

    questions_asked_by_justices

    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 the minimum educational benefit schools must provide.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 11, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Parents want a standard requiring significant educational progress.

The district wants a standard allowing minimal progress.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Parents argue the law requires substantial educational opportunities.

The district argues the Spending Clause requires unambiguous standards.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Roberts asked if the standard appeared in the original petition.

Breyer asked why the statute does not define progress clearly.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the minimum support schools must provide 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