E.E v. State of California, 3:21-cv-07585

Background

Plaintiffs (two named students with disabilities and DREDF on behalf of similarly situated students) challenge California Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130), which for 2021–22 made Independent Study the primary form of distance learning and limits participation of students with IEPs unless the IEP team specifically authorizes it.
Plaintiffs allege AB 130 functionally excludes COVID‑vulnerable disabled students from safe access to public education by denying the virtual instruction and IEP services they received in 2020–21.
Declarations from parents, advocates, an infectious‑disease expert, and a special‑education expert describe systemic denials, delays in convening IEPs, inadequate Home/Hospital instruction, and likely medical and educational harm (including skill regression) from lost virtual instruction.
Plaintiffs sought a TRO requiring defendants to restore the pre‑AB130 (status quo as of June 30, 2021) virtual instruction and IEP services for 15 identified students and to assure districts of reimbursement for such instruction.
The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their ADA and Section 504 claims (systemic discrimination), that exhaustion under IDEA was not required, and that irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest favored a TRO.
The court granted the TRO: defendants must notify districts within one business day, ensure identified students receive virtual instruction comparable to 2020–21 with IEP services, and assure reimbursement; no bond required. TRO remains until resolution of the preliminary injunction motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the requested relief is mandatory or prohibitory	Relief preserves pre‑AB130 status (restore prior virtual access); thus prohibitory	AB 130 already in effect, so plaintiffs seek to change the status quo (mandatory)	Court: relief is prohibitory because status quo ante litem is the position before AB 130 took effect
Whether plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies	Claims challenge state statute and systemic discrimination, not denial of a FAPE; Fry test permits bypassing exhaustion	Relief sought is available under the IDEA; plaintiffs must exhaust	Court: exhaustion not required because plaintiffs seek relief not available under IDEA (challenge to statutory barrier), and OAH cannot provide the requested relief
Likelihood of success on ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims	AB 130 restricts distance learning to Independent Study, which is inaccessible to many students with disabilities (alternate curriculum, need for adult support); exclusion is discrimination	Compliance with AB 130 reflects state educational policy and does not constitute unlawful discrimination; relief would fundamentally alter education system	Court: plaintiffs likely to succeed; AB 130 and implementation create systemic barriers denying benefits by reason of disability for some students
Irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest	Students face immediate medical risk or loss of education/irreparable regression; compensatory relief later is inadequate	Plaintiffs delayed; compensatory education can remedy harm; statewide interests favor enforcing AB 130	Court: irreparable harm shown; equities and public interest favor limited TRO for identified students to restore 2020–21 virtual access and IEP services

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for injunctive relief requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (test for whether IDEA exhaustion is required: whether claim seeks relief also available under IDEA / gravamen analysis)
E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussion of preliminary injunction factors and exhaustion/threshold showing)
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions/ sliding‑scale approach to preliminary injunctions)
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (mandatory injunctions are disfavored and require a heightened showing)
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) (definition of status quo and analysis distinguishing prohibitory from mandatory injunctions)