Judicial Decisions

There are 2 posts filed in Judicial Decisions (this is page 1 of 1).

Court Upholds New York’s Restrictive Special Education Rule: What Parents Need to Know for 2025-2026

July 17, 2025 – A recent court ruling has implications for families of children with disabilities in New York City, just as the new school year approaches. Here’s what parents need to know about the Enhanced Rate Equitable Services (ERES) process, and whether appeals are expected.

The Decision: A New Change in Special Education Due Process

On July 11, 2025, New York Supreme Court Justice Amy E. Joyce issued a ruling in Agudath Israel of America v. New York State Board of Regents, rejecting a challenge to a 2024 emergency regulation that had barred families from using due process hearings to challenge provider service rates under IESPs (Individualized Education Services Programs).

While the emergency regulation had already expired in October 2024, the court’s ruling validated the NYC Department of Education’s shift away from the impartial hearing process and toward a newly created administrative route: the ERES Unit.

Continue reading →

Cerra v. Pawling Central School District: How IDEA Shapes IEP Requirements

Introduction

This post is a part of our ongoing blog series exploring significant Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) cases. Today, we’ll look into Cerra v. Pawling Central School District (2005). This case provides essential insights into how the Second Circuit interprets the requirements under the IDEA, particularly concerning the adequacy of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). If you’re new to this series, consider reading our original post which links to posts about the foundational IDEA decisions, like Rowley and Endrew F., which set important legal standards.

Cerra v. Pawling Central School District (2005) – The Background

The Cerra case arose when the parents of a child with a disability disputed the adequacy of their child’s IEP. Under IDEA, public schools must provide children with disabilities a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The parents argued that the school’s IEP failed to address their child’s unique educational needs and sought reimbursement for private school tuition.

Continue reading →