Whether parents of students with disabilities have Article III standing to bring a putative class action alleging systemic violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and state special education statutes based on alleged failures to provide a free appropriate public education during remote learning transitions, and whether such claims are rendered moot by subsequent school reopenings

No question identified. : To the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh, as Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: The Petitioners, RITA C. SIMPSON-VLACH and ALAN SIMPSON-VLACH on behalf of A.S. and M.S.; KATHY BISHOP and CHRISTOPHER PLACE on behalf of C.P. and H.P., under Supreme Court Rule 13(5), request a 60-day extension to petition for a writ of certiorari. This request, if granted, would extend the deadline from September 10, 2023, to November 9, 2023. Petitioners will ask this Court to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, issued on May 10, 2023 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), which affirmed the dismissal of Petitioners’ putative class action Complaint against the Michigan Department of Education (“MDE”), Washtenaw Intermediate School District (““WISD”), Ann Arbor Public Schools (“AAPS”), along with various individual employees (such as Superintendents). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Petitioners’ Complaint by holding that Petitioners failed to allege necessary elements of constitutional standing that would permit the requested relief. Petitioners Complaint claimed that Respondents failed to provide A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P. a free appropriate public education (““FAPE”), as required by the IDEA. Petitioners contend that Respondents engaged in systemic violations of the IDEA when they transitioned to remote learning in March 2020; violated the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (““MARSE”); violated the Americans with Disabilities Act; violated the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act; and violated RICO. The Sixth Circuit denied rehearing en banc on June 12, 2023 (attached hereto as Exhibit 2) and affirmed its previous holding. The rehearing en banc Panel's decision conflicts with the United States Supreme Court's binding precedent regarding standing. Furthermore, the Panel's decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedent regarding mootness. The question of standing to sue for systemic violations of federal statutes is of exceptional public importance, additionally the question of whether claims related to future school closures are moot is a question of exceptional importance. The Court has jurisdiction to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1254. The Petitioners request this extension of time for the following reasons: 1. This case presents substantial and essential questions of law, including Congressional authorization of states to provide protections to disabled students under the IDEA. For example, the types of programs prescribed in Michigan by the MARSE. 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 also recently petitioned for an extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in Navarro Carrillo, et. al. v. New York City Department of Ed., et. al. seeking an extension to October 30, 2023. BIRG thus has three petitions, on matters of utmost importance to disabled students,