Whether the burden of proof shifts when the public agency seeks to change the educational placement of a child with a disability

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services from a public agency, may unilaterally enroll their student in a private school and thereafter seek reimbursement for such private placement from the public school. 20 US.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)Gi). In Florence County School District Four v. Carter, this Court held that parents initially seeking such relief carry the burden of proving “(1) that the public placement violated IDEA, and (2) that the private school placement was proper under the act.” 510 US. 7, 15 (1998). This Court again addressed the issue of burden of proof in an initial private placement IDEA case in Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), holding that the “burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.” Id. at 58. Yet, nearly fifteen years on from Schaffer, the circuits are desperately divided on the burden of proof when a school district proposes to change the placement of a child with a disability. In this case, the Ninth Circuit, applying the minority position, held that because the parents initiated the administrative proceedings, they bore the burden of proof. 1. Whether the burden of proof shifts when the public agency seeks to change the educational placement of a child with a disability. ii LIST OF RELATED CASES Student v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii, No. DOE-SY1617-067A, Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, State of Hawai‘i. Decision entered December 20, 2017. J.G. ex rel. Howard and Denise Greenberg v. State of Hawaii, Department of Education, et al., No. 1700503-DKW-KSC, U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Judgment entered August 7, 2018. J.G., et al. v. State of Hawaii, Department of Education, et al., No. 18-16538, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered June 27, 2019, rehearing denied August 21, 2019.