WASHINGTON, May 21 — The Supreme Court ruled today that parents of children with disabilities need not hire lawyers if they want to sue public school districts over their children’s special-education needs.
In a case of interest to parents and educators across the country, the justices ruled in favor of a couple from the Cleveland suburb of Parma who were unhappy with the school district’s proposal to meet the special needs of their autistic son.
Jeff and Sandee Winkelman could not afford to continue paying a lawyer to sue the Parma City School District over the program designed for the youngest of their five children, Jacob, who was 6 when the lawsuit began about four years ago.
In general, federal law allows people to represent themselves in court. But most federal courts have barred parents of children with disabilities from appearing without a lawyer in cases filed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which guarantees all children a “free appropriate public education.”
A central question for the justices was whether the act confers rights only on children, or whether parents, too, have rights under the act. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no doubt about the rights of the parents.
“The parents enjoy enforceable rights at the administrative stage, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert these rights in federal court,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “It is not a novel proposition to say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education and upbringing of their child.”
The justices reasoned that, because the parents have their own rights under IDEA and can sue on their own behalf, the issue of whether they could sue on behalf of their children need not be addressed. As a rule, courts require minor children to be represented by lawyers in legal matters. So if the high court had held today that the Winkelman boy, but not his parents, enjoyed rights under IDEA, the parents would have needed a lawyer to pursue their case.
The Parma school district argued unsuccessfully that the parents’ rights were simply “derivative,” or based on the rights that the act confers upon children. Therefore, the district argued, the Winkelmans could not get around the rule that only a lawyer can represent another person in court.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas wrote separately today to say they agreed that the Winkelmans should be able to sue over violations of their procedural rights or to recover private-school expenses, but not to seek a finding that their child’s educational program is inadequate.
“I would prefer to give Jacob the best chance with an attorney,” Mrs. Winkelman told The Associated Press after the ruling was announced. She said several lawyers have offered to represent them for nothing, but if those arrangements do not work out she and her husband will at least be able to pursue their suit on their own.
The Winkelmans objected to the school district’s plan to educate Jacob at a public school, and wanted the district to pay the $56,000 cost of enrolling the boy in a private school that specializes in autistic children. The parents spent about $30,000 on legal fees, The A.P. said. Mr. Winkelman took a second job to pay for court costs, while his wife researched court rulings.
The justices ruled today that a Federal District Court in Cleveland and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had both erred in holding that the Winkelmans could not sue without a lawyer, a position that most of the federal circuits had embraced.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal Department of Education, had argued that the Sixth Circuit was wrong and should be reversed. A lawyer from Mr. Clement’s office argued on the Winkelmans’ behalf.
So did a Los Angeles lawyer, Jean-Claude Andre, who handled the couple’s Supreme Court appeal without charge. “What we’re advocating here is really access to courts,” he said when the case was argued on Feb. 27.
