No. 23-936

Anne Davis, on Behalf of Braeden Davis v. District of Columbia

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2024-02-27
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-proceedings appeals civil-procedure due-process due-process-rights educational-placement idea-dispute individuals-with-disabilities-education-act special-education-law stay-put-provision
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2024-06-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether and to what extent Section 1415(j) imposes obligations on school officials when a child's exact pre-dispute educational placement is no longer available

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (DEA) ensures that children with disabilities have access to an educational plan tailored to their unique needs, and it sets forth procedures for resolving disputes between families and school officials over the development and implementation of that plan. Section 1415() of the IDEA, known as the “stay-put” provision, guarantees that “during the pendency of any [IDEA] proceedings” related to such disputes, the child “shall remain in [the child’s] then-current educational placement.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415q@). The questions presented are: 1. Whether and to what extent Section 1415() imposes obligations on school officials when a child’s exact pre-dispute educational placement is no longer available. 2. Whether Section 1415G)’s stay-put mandate applies during the appeal of an adverse district court decision resolving an IDEA dispute.

Docket Entries

2024-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
2024-06-04
Reply of petitioner Anne Davis, on Behalf of Braeden Davis filed. (Distributed)
2024-05-30
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
2024-05-28
2024-04-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including May 28, 2024.
2024-04-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 17, 2024 to July 1, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-04-25
Response to motion to extend the time to file a response from petitioner filed.
2024-04-17
Response Requested. (Due May 17, 2024)
2024-04-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.
2024-03-27
Waiver of right of respondent District of Columbia to respond filed.
2024-03-27
Brief amici curiae of Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates filed.
2024-02-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 28, 2024)
2023-12-18
Application (23A561) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until February 23, 2024.
2023-12-14
Application (23A561) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 26, 2023 to February 23, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Anne Davis, on Behalf of Braeden Davis
Roman Martinez VLatham & Watkins, LLP, Petitioner
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
Selene Almazan-AltobelliCouncil of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Amicus
District of Columbia
Caroline Sage Van ZileOffice of the Attorney General for D.C., Respondent
Sonya Ludmilla LebsackOffice of the Attorney General, Dist. of Columbia, Respondent