A.D. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education
727 F.3d 911
9th Cir.2013Background
- This appeal concerns the interaction of the IDEA stay-put provision with Hawaii's Act 163 limiting public education eligibility to under 20.
- A.D. has attended Loveland Academy at public expense since age seven and turned 20 in May 2011.
- Act 163 provides that no person twenty or older on the first instructional day shall be eligible for public school, with some continuation to the end of the school year if the turn occurs after the first day.
- After turning 20, A.D. was notified his special-education placement would end July 31, 2011 under Act 163.
- A.D. filed a due process complaint on June 20, 2011, seeking to remain in Loveland Academy until age 22 due to IDEA rights, and DOE stopped paying tuition after July 31, 2011.
- The district court held that stay put should have been in place when the due process request was filed; DOE appeals on the stay-put/Act 163 interaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stay-put is reviewable as a collateral order on appeal. | A.D. argues stay-put is appealable. | DOE argues stay-put is not an interlocutory appealable order. | Yes; stay-put is appealable as a collateral order. |
| Whether stay-put applies to a student who has exceeded a state age limit but challenges eligibility. | A.D. contends stay-put applies because he was IDEA-eligible when he filed the challenge. | DOE contends Act 163 ends eligibility, so stay-put cannot apply. | Stay-put applies; automatic protection persists during the challenge. |
| Whether the case is moot given the student surpassed IDEA age limits. | A.D. may be moot since he turned 22 and exited special education. | DOE argues no ongoing controversy, so moot. | Not moot; the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (stay-put as the default protection during disputes in education)
- Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (automatic stay-put injunction during pendency of proceedings)
- K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t of Educ., State of Haw., 665 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (stay-put effective from filing due process complaint)
- Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200 v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 79 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1996) (stay-put ends when student is no longer IDEA-eligible; age-limit issues may affect rationale)
- Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) (capability of repetition evading review for issues likely to reoccur)
- Marcus I. ex rel. Karen I. v. Dep’t of Educ., 506 F. App’x 613 (9th Cir. 2013) (collateral order appealability of stay-put order (unpublished))
- Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) (stay-put functioned as automatic injunction during dispute)
- R.Y. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 558552 (D. Haw. 2010) (stay-put rights during diploma-related disputes (district court reference))