Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (15-497)

argument 15-497

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question about exhaustion under 15‑497?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear an argument first this morning in case fifteen four hundred ninety seven, Fry versus Napoleon Community Schools. Mr. Baggenstoss?

Unknown 0:09

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Congress adopted the Handicapped Children's Protection Act to make clear that the IDEA is not the exclusive vehicle for protecting the rights of children with disabilities, and Congress also sought to make clear that cases brought under other Federal statutes, like the ADA And the rehabilitation act may proceed directly to court so long as they are not actually seeking relief that is also available under the IDEA. Under that statutory text, it is irrelevant whether the plaintiff could have sought some other form of relief that would have been available under the IDEA. There's a school district and two surrounding school districts within the same federal court jurisdiction and same circuit uh have each been ordered to uh make accommodations under fate.

Unknown 0:56

under FAP for a dog. Um And then person in the third school district just sues under the ADA. Is there an exhaustion problem? Well I think the question would be what is the relief that the plaintiff is seeking in that third law. So it just depends on what the complaint says? I think it depends on the relief the plaintiff is seeking because that is what the statutory language says. So the statute the artful form of the complaint suffices uh to subject the district court to damages that it might not uh the the school district to damages that it might not otherwise have had to pay. Well, uh a couple of points about that. First, I don't think it's the artful form of the complaint. I think it is the relief the plaintiff is seeking.

Unknown 1:41

But secondly, remember this is damages being sought under a separate Federal statute that would fully apply even if exhaustion existed. The question isn't whether the school district is going to be subjected to damages under the ADA or not. That is something that might exist anyway. The question is whether IDEA proceedings have to first be exhausted. And what Congress said about that. In this statute, unlike in other Federal statutes where it said exhaustion is required whenever any remedy is available. Here what Congress said is when the plaintiff is seeking relief that is also available under the IDEA. But you could you could have You could have, as Justice Kennedy suggested, gone the IDEA route. You could have

Unknown 2:21

asked to accommodate the dog and and if you had done that And you were turned down. Could you then switch to the ADA track? Or would you have to having started under IDEA continue. on that route. Well, uh under a respondents' position here, I think we would have and under the Sixth Circuit's position certainly, we would have to follow all of the IDEA procedures through to their conclusion before filing a lawsuit under the ADA. I don't I don't think I think we still would be able to file the ADA lawsuit. Now, there's a difference not just in terms of relief in the lawsuit that would be filed under the ADA versus the one that would be filed under the IDEA, which is under the IDEA In order to get any relief, the plaintiff would have to show not just that there is a denial of a dog, but that that actually deprived the plaintiff of a free, appropriate public education.

Unknown 3:16

Under the ADA, the the rights that individuals with disabilities have to bring their service dogs to public facilities are the same in all public facilities. You have a service dog, you can bring it.

John G. Roberts 3:25

I I understand you would be making two arguments. One is that You don't have to exhaust because you are asking for damages and those aren't available under the IDEA. And the second one is you don't have to exhaust because you are not complaining about the fair and appropriate public education provision. Are those Separate arguments or are do you have to satisfy both of them?

Unknown 3:48

No, I think they are independent arguments, Mr. Chief Justice. So I think the fact that we are seeking emotional distress damages, and those damages, as the Sixth Circuit recognized, are not available under the IDEA is fully sufficient for us to prevail here to say that exhaustion was not required.