Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. M.N.B., by and through her Parent, J.B., Defendant - Appellee.
No. 18-3255
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Filed: July 29, 2020
Minnesota Association of School Administrators; Minnesota School Boards Association, Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s). Apрeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Submitted: November 12, 2019. Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
A State that receives federal funding under the
I.
The State of Minnesota receives federal funding under the IDEA. To receive these funds, a State must ensure, with exceptions not applicable here, that a “free appropriate public education,” or FAPE, is available to all children with disаbilities residing in the State.
Minnesota also operates an open enrollment program under which most students in kindergarten through 12th grade are eligible to attend a school outside of the district in which they reside. A parent may apply for a student to attend school in a nonresident district.
M.N.B. resides in Big Lake, Minnesota, and requires special education. Her residence is located in the Big Lake Schools, Independent School District No. 727. The Big Lake District referred M.N.B. to Karner Blue Education Center, a school in the Northeast Metro Intermediate School District No. 916. She attended this school for the third and fourth grades. An IEP developed with Karner Bluе in October 2015 provided that M.N.B. should be “transported individually to and from school.” To meet this obligation, the Big Lake District reimbursed M.N.B.‘s mother, J.B., based on mileage driven to and from Karner Blue each day from September 2015 to June 2016. According to J.B., she was informed in May 2016 that M.N.B. сould not return to the Northeast Metro District, because Big Lake was not a “member district.” See
In September 2016, J.B. applied under the Minnesota open enrollment program for M.N.B. to enroll in Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279. The Osseo District approved the application, and M.N.B. began attending the North Education Center in New Hope for the fifth grade. This school is located about
J.B. continued to drive M.N.B. to аnd from school. The parties disputed the extent to which the Osseo District was required to reimburse her for transportation expenses. J.B. sought reimbursement for mileage costs between her home and the North Education Center. The Osseo District maintained that bеcause M.N.B. resided in Big Lake, and attended North Education Center via placement by the Osseo District through the open enrollment program, the Osseo District was required to reimburse J.B. only for mileage costs from the border of the Osseo District to the school. The Osseo District declined to reimburse J.B. for transportation costs between M.N.B.‘s home in Big Lake and the Osseo District.
J.B. filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education alleging that the Osseo District violated the IDEA by declining to reimburse the full amount of transportation expenses. See
The Osseo District brought an action in the district court to challenge the administrative decision. See
II.
On appeal, the Osseo District renews its contention that the IDEA does not require it to pay for transportation between M.N.B.‘s home and a school where she was placed through the Osseo District. It is agreed that M.N.B.‘s individualized education program calls for individual transportation to and from school. It is also undisputed that M.N.B. resides in the Big Lake District, has an IEP that places her at Karner Blue Education Center, and now attends school at North Education Center based on her parent‘s choicе to enroll her in the Osseo District through the open enrollment program. Although M.N.B. apparently could not return to Karner Blue for the fifth grade, the IEP developed in the Big Lake District remains in effect during these proceedings.
A State‘s obligations under the IDEA arise from conditions imposed by the statute in exchange for the receipt of federal funds. The principal obligation is to provide a FAPE to all eligible children with disabilities.
In this case, the State met its obligation under federal law to provide a FAPE by enrolling M.N.B. at Karner Blue Education Center, in accordance with her individualized education program, and by reimbursing her parent for the cost of transportation to and from that school. After two years at Karner Blue, however, M.N.B.‘s parent chose to enroll M.N.B. in the Osseo District through the Minnesota open enrollment program. The North Education Center is not located in the district where the student resides and is not the placement agreed upon by parents and school offiсials in the IEP that called for individual transportation. The IDEA does not speak directly to whether a State is required to assume the cost of transporting a student to and from a school of her parent‘s choice in that situation.
In determining whether a State аnd local educational agency are required to provide services, we must consider that any obligations flow from conditions on the receipt of federal funds. Under the Spending Clause of the Constitution, “if Congress intends to impose a condition on thе grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981). Therefore, “we must view the IDEA from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept IDEA funds and the obligations that go with those funds.” Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 296 (2006). In so doing, “we must аsk whether the IDEA furnishes clear notice regarding the liability at issue in this case.” Id. That is particularly true where, as here, the question is whether the statute imposes a new programmatic obligation on the State. See id. at 305 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
Wе see nothing in the IDEA that provides clear notice to a State that it must cover transportation expenses when a student‘s travel is the result of a parent‘s choice under an open enrollment program. To be sure, the IDEA requires the State to рrovide the student with a FAPE, and M.N.B.‘s individualized education program calls for individual transportation to and from school. But the Big Lake District is required by state law to provide a FAPE for all residents of the district, see
M.N.B. adverts briefly to a 2016 decision of the Minnesota Department of Education on a complaint from other disabled students against the Osseo District. A department official cited Letter to Lutjeharms in the course of concluding that the Osseo District must provide transportatiоn to and from school for a disabled student if transportation is a related service in the student‘s IEP. Minn. Dept. of Educ., Complaint Decision, File #16-138C, R. Doc. 29, at 175 (Oct. 12, 2016). M.N.B. does not argue, however, that this administrative decision on a complaint of other students has preсlusive effect in this case. And the decision may have rested on a mistaken interpretation of state law rather than the IDEA in any event. See id. at 190 ¶ 19. The governing Minnesota statutes and rule provide that when a school district enrolls a student through the open enrollment program, it must provide transportation only “within its borders” or “within the district.”
M.N.B. also cites a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that after-school transportation for one mile outside a school district‘s boundaries was a “related service,” where it creаted no burden on the school district and was necessary for a disabled student to meet a caregiver until his working mother could pick him up. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1153, 1159-60 (5th Cir. 1986). That decision did not address transportation costs to and from school under an open enrollment program and dоes not inform our analysis.
* * *
Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the IDEA does not require the Osseo District to reimburse M.N.B.‘s parent for the cost of transportation between her home and the border of the Osseo District. The judgment оf the district court is therefore reversed.