Whether the move from in-person to virtual educational instruction and support services constitutes a change in placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the move from in-person to virtual educational instruction and _ support services constitutes a change in placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (TIDEA”). 2. Whether the panel erred in holding that wellestablished exceptions to the administrative exhaustion requirement applicable to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) did not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, thereby stripping them of standing. 3. Whether this Court should intervene to clarify and preserve the integrity of the exceptions to the administrative exhaustion requirement for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“§ 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the denial of Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) in light of this Court’s findings in Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142.