930 F.3d 519
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- M.K., a high-school student with an emotional disability under the IDEA, was disciplined after assaulting another student; School found the conduct a manifestation of disability but removed him to an interim alternative setting and suspended him for the 45‑day statutory cap.
- School filed for a due‑process hearing seeking a permanent change of placement and to continue the interim placement pending the hearing; the expedited administrative hearing was scheduled within the IDEA’s timetable.
- After M.K.’s 45‑day suspension expired, his mother (Olu‑Cole) sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under the IDEA’s stay‑put provision to compel readmission and requested compensatory education for the exclusion period.
- The district court found the two statutory stay‑put prerequisites satisfied but denied injunctive relief after placing on Olu‑Cole the burden to prove irreparable harm and citing school‑safety concerns.
- The School later withdrew its administrative complaint and readmitted M.K.; Olu‑Cole appealed, asserting the district court erred in shifting the burden and that the denial continues to affect M.K.’s right to compensatory education.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in placing burden on parent to show irreparable harm for stay‑put relief | Olu‑Cole: once the two stay‑put predicates are shown, the presumption favors stay‑put and the school must prove maintaining placement would likely cause injury; parent need not show irreparable harm | School: district court’s weighing of safety and potential harm justified denying relief (and court characterized outcome as proper under preliminary injunction standards) | Court: Reversed — district court erred; burden rests with school to overcome stay‑put presumption and show substantial likelihood of injury |
| Whether school’s later readmission of M.K. moots the appeal | Olu‑Cole: denial of stay‑put had continuing concrete effects on entitlement to compensatory education; relief remains effective and meaningful | School: readmission and dismissal of administrative complaint render controversy moot | Court: Not moot — compensatory education claim survives and reversal can provide effectual relief |
| Whether 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 conflicts with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4) about interim placement duration | Olu‑Cole: regulation harmonizes with statute and IDEA’s expedited timeline; statute limits removals to 45 days | School: regulation improperly limits the period school may keep a child in interim setting pending hearing officer decision | Court: Regulation is consistent with statutory text and IDEA’s 30‑day expedited schedule; no conflict |
| Whether school‑safety concerns justified overriding stay‑put without school meeting its burden | Olu‑Cole: school safety exception requires a clear, substantial showing by the school; school’s subsequent readmission undermines safety claim | School: return posed unacceptable potential of harm to others, supporting denial | Court: Safety concerns cannot substitute for the school’s statutory burden; school’s conduct (readmission) undercuts its asserted safety justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (stay‑put presumption and narrow equity exception for dangerous students)
- Boose v. District of Columbia, 786 F.3d 1054 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (compensatory education as remedy for IDEA violations)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions)
- B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (purpose of compensatory education to restore student to position absent IDEA violation)
- Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) (stay‑put functions as an automatic preliminary injunction)
- M.R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., 868 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2017) (stay‑put gives rise to concomitant rights to stay‑put and compensatory education)
- Casey K. ex rel. Norman K. v. Saint Anne Community High Sch. Dist. No. 302, 400 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2005) (characterizing stay‑put injunction as effectively automatic)