Haw. Rev. Stat. § 302A-1134
[L 1996, c 89, pt of §2 and am c 90, §3; am L 2003, c 187, §10; am L 2010, c 163, §1; am L 2014, c 215, §3; am L 2020, c 24, §2; am L 2022, c 224, §3]
Because student was ineligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when student commenced student's administrative challenge to Act 163, L 2010 [which amended subsection (c)], student was fully entitled to an automatic injunction preserving student's placement at a private school during the pendency of the dispute; that automatic injunction should have held in abeyance any changes to student's educational placement, whether the result of Act 163 or some other cause. 727 F.3d 911 (2013).
Where student argued that department of education's (DOE) appeal became moot when student turned twenty-two, and the sole object of student's challenge to Act 163, L 2010 [which amended subsection (c)], was to secure educational services until student reached the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's default eligibility age of twenty-two, the appeal was not moot because, inter alia, the DOE was reasonably likely to face these challenges to the law again. 727 F.3d 911 (2013).
Act 163 [L 2010, amending subsection (c)] barring both general education and special needs students from attending public school after the last day of the school year in which they turned twenty violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The department of education's community schools for adults, which were exempt from Act 163, offered, at taxpayer expense, the opportunity for nondisabled twenty- and twenty-one-year-olds to complete their secondary educations and earn high school diplomas. Providing IDEA services to disabled children of those ages would be consistent with "[S]tate law or practice ... respecting the provision of public education", so the State must do so. However, plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act because plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of the existence of a reasonable accommodation; plaintiffs did not identify changes to the structure or curricula of the community schools for adults that would make them generally accessible to disabled students. 728 F.3d 982 (2013).