Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits states to provide greater protections to disabled students than those mandated by the federal statute, and whether federal courts may defer to state administrative officers' interpretations of state law in IDEA disputes

No question identified. : To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, as Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: The Petitioners, MARIA NAVARRO CARILLO and JOSE GARZON, Individually and as Parents of M.G., under Supreme Court Rule 13(5), request a 60day extension to petition for a writ of certiorari. This request, if granted, would extend the deadline from August 29, 2023, to October 30, 2023. Petitioners will ask this Court to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued on May 1, 2023 (annexed hereto as Exhibit 1), which affirmed the denial of Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and granted Respondents’ motion for cross-summary judgment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Petitioners claimed that Respondents, David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education and the New York City Department of Education (collectively "DOE"), failed to provide M.G. a free appropriate public education (‘FAPE”), as required by the IDEA. Petitioners contend that Respondents ignored the will of Congress in providing that the IDEA constitutes a floor, not a ceiling, for the rights of disabled students, and that states may provide greater protections than those provided in the IDEA. The Court has jurisdiction to review the Second Circuit’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1254. The Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc on May 31, 2023 (attached hereto as Exhibit 2) and affirmed its previous holding. The Petitioners request this extension of time for the following reasons: 1. This case presents substantial and essential questions of law, including Congressional intent in authorizing states to provide greater protections to disabled students than the IDEA. 2. This case also presents substantial and essential questions of law about whether a federal court may defer to a state administrative officer’s interpretation and application of state and federal statutes on issues of law. 3. The Brian Injury Rights Group, Ltd. (““BIRG”) is a small nonprofit law firm based in New York City. Recently, one of the attorneys that participated in the litigation of this action from its inception through appeal has left the firm. The Firm has a limited number of remaining attorneys to work on the petition for writ of certiorari in this case. 4. One of the BIRG attorneys that will assist the undersigned is lead counsel in a case currently scheduled for trial in September in another state. Thus, his time and resources will unavoidably be diverted from preparation of the cert. petition in this case. 5. For similar reasons, BIRG recently obtained an extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in another case, Mendez, et al. v. Banks, et al. The petition in that case is now due October 14, 2023. BIRG thus has two petitions, on matters of utmost importance to disabled students, to be prepared in a relatively short period of time. 6. If the Second Circuit’s decision is not reviewed by this Court, state administrative officers and federal courts will be free to ignore state statutes that provide greater protections for disabled students than the IDEA, as authorized by Congress in the IDEA itself. The importance of this Court’s review of that opinion thus is clear, but the undersigned will not have sufficient time to complete a petition for writ of certiorari by August 29, 2023. For these reasons, the Petitioners request a 60-day extension of time to petition for a writ of certiorari to October 30, 2023. Dated: August 18, 2023 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, /s/ Rory J. Bellantoni, Esq. Counsel of Record Brain Injury Rights Group, Ltd. 300 E. 95t St., #130 New York, New York 10128 rory@pabilaw.com Case 21-2639, Document 84-1, 05/01/2023, 3507586, Page1 of 12 21-2639 Navarro Carrillo v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NO