Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to follow the Supreme Court's standard for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) established in Endrew F. when it did not consider the student's circumstances - a student with Autism who was subject to bullying - and allowed the school district to return the student to the school where the bullying had occurred without addressing the bullying

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, 580 US. __, 187 S.Ct. 988, 1000 (2017), this Court established that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for a child with a disability must be “appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances.” J.M., an autistic child, was repeatedly bullied at the public school before his mother placed him in a private school for Autism to protect him against additional bullying. He made significant progress in that new environment. The State of Hawaii, Department of Education (HIDOE) prepared an IEP which would return J.M. back to the public school where he had been bullied even though the school did not have any formal policies against bullying. Two questions are presented: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals fail to follow this Court’s standard for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) established in Endrew F. when it did not consider J.M.’s circumstances — a student with Autism who was subject to bullying — and allowed HIDOE to return J.M. to the school where the bullying had occurred without addressing the bullying? 2. In Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005), this Court held that, in a special education dispute, the party seeking relief bears the burden of proof. HIDOE sought to change J.M.’s educational placement from a private placement in his IEP and was thus the party seeking relief. Did the trial and li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued appellate courts depart from this Court’s precedent in Schaffer when they assigned the burden of proof on petitioner when he was not the one seeking relief?