Petit v. United States Department of Education
675 F.3d 769
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- IDEA requires states to provide a free appropriate public education including related services and assistive technology devices as defined by the Act.
- 2004 amendments added an express exception excluding surgically implanted medical devices and replacements from related services and assistive technology devices.
- Regulations in 2006 excluded cochlear implant mapping from being an assistive technology service or a related service, creating a regulatory mapping to the 1983 framework.
- Appellants are parents of children with cochlear implants who allege mapping is a required related service under the IDEA and that the 2006 regulations improperly exclude it.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Department, and appellants appealed challenging Chevron step-one and step-two grounds and § 1406(b) compliance.
- The court held that the term 'audiology services' is ambiguous under the IDEA, permitting a deferential review of the Department's regulatory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is mapping within cochlear implants an audiology service under IDEA? | Petit argues mapping is audiology under the statute. | Department contends 'audiology services' is ambiguous and mapping falls outside. | Ambiguity exists; mapping not unambiguously required. |
| Are the Mapping Regulations a permissible construction of the IDEA under Chevron Step Two? | Regulations conflict with the statute's plain language and history. | Regulations reasonably relate to IDEA goals and record supports rationale. | Mapping Regulations are a permissible construction; deference owed. |
| Do the Mapping Regulations substantively lessen protections of the 1983 regulations under § 1406(b)(2)? | 1983 regulations unambiguously include mapping; regulations lessen protections. | 1983 regulations are ambiguous on mapping; interpretation is permissible. | regulations do not substantively lessen protections. |
| Does § 300.113 govern mapping as routine checking of external components? | Mapping pertains to external component maintenance. | Mapping is post-surgical programming, not routine external checks. | Waived argument; mapping falls outside § 300.113's routine checking scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (IDEA's 'free appropriate public education' framework)
- Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (basic floor of opportunity standard for FAPE)
- Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (U.S. 1984) (medical services under related services framework)
- Garret F. v. Garret Sch. Dist., 526 U.S. 666 (U.S. 1999) (services enabling a disabled child to remain in school)
- National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (agency interpretations trump court decisions when statute ambiguous)
- Village of Barrington v. Surface Transp. Bd., 636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (contextual guidance for interpreting ambiguous statutory terms)