-
Brown v. Board of Education
The case of Brown v. Board of Education was based on the segregation and separation of children based on their race in public schools. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation between children in public schools was unconstitutional and went against the 14th Amendment (National Archives, 2024). -
Civil Rights Act
“Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin” (U.S. Department of Labor). Reference U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Legal highlight: The civil rights act of 1964. DOL. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/statutes/civil-rights-act-of-1964#:~:text=In%201964%2C%20Congress%20passed%20Public,hiring%2C%20promoting%2C%20and%20firing. -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
This act allows funding for elementary and secondary education Reference Paul, C. A. (n.d.). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Social Welfare History Project. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-1965/ -
Mills v. Board of Education
Several children were denied access to a public education. The school board labeled these students as “exceptional” due to having mental disabilities and/or behavioral issues, so they would not allow the children to attend public schools in Washington, DC. The outcome of this court included that the school board must provide free public education and provide funding for special education programs as well as for teachers in the District (Arocho, 2012). -
Larry P. v. Riles
Five African American children were placed in a special education class based on their low IQs. After this case was brought to the district court, the court ruled a majority for the students. The case outcome showed that it was no longer allowed for school districts to use IQ results for placement determination (Feldman Ravandi). -
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
During the litigation of PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, students aged 6 to 21 years old were denied free access to education due to having a mental disability. The court ruled that the state of PA was not allowed to deny a student from accessing education due to mental or physical disability (PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case documents, 2025). -
The Rehabilitation Act - 504
"...prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education" (Section 504). Reference Section 504. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/section-504 -
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act
Protects the right to meet the needs of children with disabilities Reference A history of the individuals with disabilities education act. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2024, February 16). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History -
Armstrong v. Kline
The case involved five handicapped children and plaintiffs. The defendants were found to be violating their rights to free public education. The court ruled that 180 days of school isn’t enough for children with disabilities (Stotland). Through the Armstrong v. Kline case, the court decision mandated Extended School Year programming “…for children with any varying degree of a disability who meets the court’s eligibility standard” (Agencies, 2023). -
Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley
A deaf student named Amy Rowley was refused a sign language interpreter when she started 1st grade in a public school, so her parents filed a case in district court against the school district. The court ruled that Amy was not obtaining “free appropriate public education”. This case benefited future education by increasing the standard of education provided to students with disabilities (Duignan). -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
A student requiring catheterization throughout the day due to spina bifida was refused this service by the school. The parents filed the suit against the school district, claiming the refusal of the catheterization service was a violation of IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act (1973). The court ruled that the school needed to provide the catheterization, but the district was not in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act (Umpstead). -
EHA Amendment
Established the Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Program. Educational services for children aged from birth to two years old. Reference Individuals with disabilities education act. Brain Injury Association of America. (2020, March 26). https://biausa.org/public-affairs/public-policy/individuals-with-disabilities-education-act#:~:text=In%201986%2C%20EHA%20was%20amended,with%20developmental%20delays%20or%20disabilities. -
Burlington School Committee v. DOE
Michael Panico was a 1st grader who was handicapped, and his parents disagreed with the IEP that the public school provided. Michael was sent to a private special education school. The Bureaus of Special Education Appeals had required officials of Burlington to reimburse the parents for the child’s tuition, but they refused. The outcome of this case provided that parents would get reimbursement for placing their child in private schooling if they disagreed with the public school IEP (Rehberg). -
Honig v. Doe
Two emotionally disturbed students filed a suit against the state superintendent of public instruction, Bill Honig. They were both threatened by expulsion due to aggressive behaviors in school but claimed that the expulsion would violate their right to “a free appropriate public education". The outcome of this case ruled the California school board violated the EAHCA (now IDEA) (Steketee, 2025). -
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education
Daniel R.R. was a boy with Down Syndrome aged six who was originally in a half-day early childhood special education program, and he was denied access to a general education pre-kindergarten class due to needing one-on-one attention. His parents filed the case under the right of the Education of the Handicapped ACT (EHA). The court ruled that the El Paso Independent School District didn’t violate EHA and determined that Daniel would not benefit from a regular education class (Studicata). -
EHA Amendment
Renamed the Act as the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA). Also, included traumatic brain injury and autism in the category of disabilities Reference Individuals with disabilities education act. Brain Injury Association of America. (2020, March 26). https://biausa.org/public-affairs/public-policy/individuals-with-disabilities-education-act#:~:text=In%201986%2C%20EHA%20was%20amended,with%20developmental%20delays%20or%20disabilities. -
Americans with Disabilities Act
A law that protects people who have disabilities from discrimination Reference The Americans with disabilities act. ADA.gov. (n.d.). https://www.ada.gov/ -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland
Rachel Holland, who has a mental disability, was denied full-time placement in a regular classroom. The district suggested that Rachel should split her time between a special education classroom and a general education classroom. The parents filed the suit based on their rights under IDEA. The court ruled that Rachel would substantially benefit from full-time placement in a general education classroom (Slenkovich and Graubard). -
Oberti v. Board of Education
Rafael Oberti was an 8-year-old with a mental disability and was placed in a special education class outside of the Clementon school district in New Jersey. His parents requested placement for Rafael in a special ed classroom at his home school. Under the IDEA his parents brought this case to district court to exercise Rafael’s right to free public education. The outcome of this case required the school district to develop an education plan for Rafael in line with the IDEA (Studicata). -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
This case included 12 students and 11 disability advocacy groups. The students, in this case, were denied “a free appropriate education” in general education classrooms. The outcome of this case provided the findings that there needed to be more monitoring of resources for children in special education (Lee, 2017). -
EHA/DEA Amendment
Required for a "free appropriate public education" Reference United States laws the Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA), 1997. WebAIM. (2021, November 10). https://webaim.org/articles/laws/usa/idea#:~:text=The%20Chafee%20Amendment-,What%20is%20the%20IDEA?,from%20preschool%20through%20high%20school. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F.
Garrett was a quadriplegic and required the use of a ventilator. When he was in 5th grade, his mother requested that the school provide the aid for the medical services required, and the school board refused. Under the IDEA, his mother went through a hearing, and the court ruled that the school board was required to provide nursing aid (Osborne). -
No Child Left Behind Act
The act required schools to show their success through the academic achievement of every student for grades K-12 Reference No child left behind - caledfacts. No Child Left Behind - CalEdFacts (CA Dept of Education). (2024, March 7). https://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/pc/cefnclb.asp#:~:text=It%20changed%20the%20federal%20government’s,academic%20achievement%20of%20every%20student. -
IDEA Amendment
Federal funding to state and local education agencies to support special education and other services are provided to eligible children Reference Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA 2004) : Policy. NC Beginnings. (n.d.). https://ncbegin.org/policy/individuals-with-disabilities-education-act-idea-2004.html#:~:text=The%20IDEA%202004%20provides%20federal,education%2C%20employment%20and%20independent%20living. -
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
Endrew was an autistic student in the fifth grade who was placed in a private school by his parents. His parents believed he wasn't fully benefitting from the public-school education. His parents had sued for reimbursement for the payment of his private school tuition under the IDEA. The case was rejected by the Administrative Law Judge due to his parents failing to prove that the public school could not provide FAPE (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District).