Whether Petitioners' claims that the CDE Defendants violated federal law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) to ensure students with disabilities like Petitioners are not excluded from public education. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d). The IDEA makes state educational agencies (““SEAs”) like the California Department of Education (“CDE”) responsible for general supervision of local educational agencies (“LEAs”) to ensure students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE”). After the Governor of California closed schools in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, the CDE instructed LEAs that they were not required to reassess student’s preexisting accommodations in the new remote learning context. It then decided not to correct for ongoing FAPE deprivations across the state. In its decision below, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Petitioners’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief against the CDE and that agency’s executive officer, holding that the eventual return to in-person instruction mooted those claims. That decision contravenes this Court’s settled precedent that intervening events will not moot a case so long as “the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013). And “a meritorious claim will not be rejected for want of a prayer for appropriate relief.” Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 66 (1978). The questions presented in this petition are: 1. Whether Petitioners’ claims that the CDE Defendants violated federal law by (i) ii effectively waiving LEAs’ compliance with the IDEA after forced school closures and (ii) failing to correct for students’ resulting FAPE deprivations presents a concrete controversy that could be addressed by a judicial declaration of the CDE’s obligations under the IDEA. 2. Whether an injunction directing the CDE Defendants to order LEAs to reevaluate Petitioners’ IEPs and settlement agreements to account for the months when accommodations were not provided, and to order compensatory education to account for the regression and loss of learning Petitioners suffered, could provide effective relief sufficient to survive the mootness inquiry. 3. Whether a cause of action can be dismissed as moot where some relief remains available, regardless of whether Petitioners requested that specific relief in their complaint. iil LIST OF ALL PARTIES PETITIONERS DANIELLE HOWARD MARTINEZ 2.|D. P., A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM ERICA WEDLOW 3. | K. P., A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM BRITTANY WILLIAMS 4. | T. W., A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM DAHL JOHNSON 5. | P. C., A MINOR, BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM RAVEN CAMPBELL | 6. LASHONDA HUBBARD AMBER WOOD | | RESPONDENTS! 1.|GAVIN NEWSOM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3. | TONY THURMOND, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC 1 Governor Newsom settled Petitioners’ claims, as did Respondents State of California, State Board of Education, State Public Health Officer and Department of Public Health Director, California Health and Human Services Agency, and California Department of Public Health. Those parties were dismissed accordingly. iv EDUCATION AND DIRECTOR’ OF EDUCATION 4. | CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SONIA ANGELL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE STATE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR2 7. | CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH THE LIST OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND STATE-RUN SCHOOLS NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN PETITIONERS’ COMPLAINT STARTS ON PAGE 33 OF THIS PETITION.? 2 Sonia Angell was initially named as a defendant in the district court but was later replaced by her successor at the time of the parties’ settlement, Erica Pan. Tomas Aragon has since replaced Dr. Pan as the current State Public Health Officer. 3 Many of these parties had not yet been served when the dist