Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools
2017 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).[1]
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (March 2017) |
Quick Facts Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, Argued October 31, 2016 Decided February 22, 2017 ...
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools | |
---|---|
Argued October 31, 2016 Decided February 22, 2017 | |
Full case name | Stacy Fry and Brent Fry, as next friends of minor E.F. v. Napoleon Community Schools, Pamela Barnes, Jackson County Intermediate School District |
Docket no. | 15-497 |
Citations | 580 U.S. 154 (more) 137 S. Ct. 743; 197 L. Ed. 2d 46 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | 788 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 2540 (2016). |
Subsequent | See the Subsequent development section |
Holding | |
Exhaustion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA's) administrative procedures is unnecessary where the gravamen of the plaintiff’s suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA’s core guarantee of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Furthermore, the court should properly analyze the gravamen of a plaintiff's charges to determine if those charges seek relief for a denial of FAPE, per the test set out by the Court (see below for more information on this). The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Alito (in part), joined by Thomas |
Laws applied | |
Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act |
Close