Winkelman Ex Rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District

Unit: $U44

516

Syllabus

WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents and legal guardians, WINKELMAN et ux., et al. v.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

No. 05–983. Argued February 27, 2007—Decided May 21, 2007

Respondent school district receives federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), so it must provide chil­ dren such as petitioner Winkelmans’ son Jacob a “free appropriate pub­ lic education,” 20 U. S. C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), in accordance with an individu­ alized education program (IEP) that the parents, school officials, and others develop as members of the student’s “IEP Team.” Regarding Jacob’s IEP as deficient, the Winkelmans unsuccessfully appealed through IDEA’s administrative review process. Proceeding without counsel, they then filed a federal-court complaint on their own behalf and on Jacob’s behalf. The District Court granted respondent judg­ ment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit entered an order dismissing the Winkelmans’ subsequent appeal unless they obtained an attorney, citing Circuit precedent holding that because the right to a free appro­ priate public education belongs only to the child, and IDEA does not abrogate the common-law rule prohibiting nonlawyer parents from rep­ resenting minor children, IDEA does not allow nonlawyer parents to proceed pro se in federal court.

1. IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights, which are

not limited to procedural and reimbursement-related matters but en­ compass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for their child. Pp. 522–535.

(a) IDEA’s text resolves the question whether parents or only chil­ dren have rights under the Act. Proper interpretation requires consid­ ering the entire statutory scheme. IDEA’s goals include “ensur[ing] that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appro­ priate public education” and “that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected,” 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A)– (B), and many of its terms mandate or otherwise describe parental involvement. Parents play “a significant role,” Schaffer v. Weast, 546

U. S. 49, 53, in the development of each child’s IEP, see §§ 1412(a)(4),

1414(d). They are IEP team members, § 1414(d)(1)(B), and their “con­ cerns” “for enhancing [their child’s] education” must be considered by

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

517

Syllabus

the team, § 1414(d)(3)(A)(ii). A State must, moreover, give “any party” who objects to the adequacy of the education provided, the IEP’s construction, or related matter the opportunity “to present a complaint . . . ,” § 1415(b)(6), and engage in an administrative review process that culminates in an “impartial due process hearing,” § 1415(f)(1)(A), before a hearing officer. “Any party aggrieved by the [hearing officer’s] findings and decision . . . [has] the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint.” § 1415(i)(2)(A). A court or hearing officer may require a state agency “to reimburse the parents for the cost of [private school] enrollment if . . . the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child.” § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). IDEA also governs when and to what extent a court may award attorney’s fees, see § 1415(i)(3)(B), including an award “to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability,” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). Pp. 523–526.

(b) These various provisions accord parents independent, enforce­ able rights. Parents have enforceable rights at the administrative stage, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert those rights in federal court at the adju­ dication stage. Respondent argues that parental involvement is con­ templated only to the extent parents represent their child’s interests, but this view is foreclosed by the Act’s provisions. The grammatical structure of IDEA’s purpose of protecting “the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children,” § 1400(d)(1)(B), would make no sense unless “rights” refers to the parents’ rights as well as the child’s.

Other provisions confirm this view. See, e. g., § 1415(a). Even if this Court were inclined to ignore the Act’s plain text and adopt respondent’s countertextual reading, the Court disagrees that the sole purpose driv­ ing IDEA’s involvement of parents is to facilitate vindication of a child’s rights. It is not novel for parents to have a recognized legal interest in their child’s education and upbringing.

The Act’s provisions also contradict the variation on respondent’s ar­ gument that parents can be “parties aggrieved” for aspects of the hear­ ing officer’s findings and decision relating to certain procedures and re­ imbursements, but not “parties aggrieved” with regard to any challenge not implicating those limited concerns. The IEP proceedings entitle parents to participate not only in the implementation of IDEA’s proce­ dures but also in the substantive formulation of their child’s educational program. The Act also allows expansive challenge by parents of “any matter” related to the proceedings and requires that administrative res­ olution be based on whether the child “received a free appropriate public education,” § 1415(f)(3)(E), with judicial review to follow. The text and structure of IDEA create in parents an independent stake not only in

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 518

Syllabus

the procedures and costs implicated by the process but also in the sub­ stantive decision to be made. Incongruous results would follow, more­ over, were the Court to accept the proposition that parents’ IDEA rights are limited to certain nonsubstantive matters. It is difficult to disentangle the Act’s procedural and reimbursement-related rights from its substantive ones, and attempting to do so would impose upon parties a confusing and onerous legal regime, one worsened by the absence of any express guidance in IDEA concerning how a court might differenti­ ate between these matters. This bifurcated regime would also leave some parents without any legal remedy. Pp. 526–533.

(c) Respondent misplaces its reliance on Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U. S. 291, when it contends that because IDEA was passed pursuant to the Spending Clause, it must provide clear notice before it can be interpreted to provide independent rights to parents. Arlington held that IDEA had not furnished clear notice before requiring States to reimburse experts’ fees to prevailing parties in IDEA actions. However, this case does not invoke Arlington’s rule, for the determination that IDEA gives parents independent, enforce­ able rights does not impose any substantive condition or obligation on States that they would not otherwise be required by law to observe.

The basic measure of monetary recovery is not expanded by recognizing that some rights repose in both the parent and the child. Increased costs borne by States defending against suits brought by nonlawyers do not suffice to invoke Spending Clause concerns, particularly in light of provisions in IDEA that empower courts to award attorney’s fees to prevailing educational agencies if a parent files an action for an “im­ proper purpose,” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III). Pp. 533–535.

2. The Sixth Circuit erred in dismissing the Winkelmans’ appeal for

lack of counsel. Because parents enjoy rights under IDEA, they are entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. In light of this holding, the Court need not reach petitioners’ argument concerning whether IDEA entitles parents to litigate their child’s claims pro se.

Reversed and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts,

Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissent­ ing in part, in which Thomas, J., joined, post, p. 535.

Jean-Claude Andre´ argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

519

Opinion of the Court

David B. Salmons argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Gen­ eral Kim, Deputy Solicitor General Garre, David K. Flynn, Gregory B. Friel, and Kent D. Talbert.

Pierre H. Bergeron argued the cause for respondent.

With him on the brief was Christina Henagen Peer.* Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Some four years ago, Mr. and Mrs. Winkelman, parents of five children, became involved in lengthy administrative and legal proceedings. They had sought review related to con­ cerns they had over whether their youngest child, 6-year-old Jacob, would progress well at Pleasant Valley Elementary School, which is part of the Parma City School District in Parma, Ohio.

Jacob has autism spectrum disorder and is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). His parents worked with the school district to develop an individualized education program (IEP), as re­ quired by the Act. All concede that Jacob’s parents had the statutory right to contribute to this process and, when agree­

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Autism Soci­ ety of America et al. by Barbara E. Etkind and Ilise L. Feitshans; for the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., et al. by Lynn S. Preece, Erin McCloskey Maus, and Angela C. Vigil; for the Equal Justice Founda­ tion et al. by Benson A. Wolman, Robert J. Krummen, and Robert M.

Clyde, Jr.; for the Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disa­ bilities et al. by Thomas C. Goldstein, Eric H. Zagrans, Pamela S. Kar­ lan, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Amy Howe, and Kevin K. Russell; and for Senator Edward M. Kennedy et al. by Jody Manier Kris.

Julie Wright Halbert and Pammela Quinn filed a brief for the Council of the Great City Schools as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

Julie Carleton Martin, Francisco M. Negro´ n, Jr., Naomi E. Gittins, Thomas E. M. Hutton, and Lisa E. Soronen filed a brief for the National School Boards Association et al. as amici curiae.

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 520 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

ment could not be reached, to participate in administrative proceedings including what the Act refers to as an “impartial due process hearing.” § 1415(f)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).

The disagreement at the center of the current dispute con­ cerns the procedures to be followed when parents and their child, dissatisfied with the outcome of the due process hear­ ing, seek further review in a United States District Court.

The question is whether parents, either on their own behalf or as representatives of the child, may proceed in court un­ represented by counsel though they are not trained or li­ censed as attorneys. Resolution of this issue requires us to examine and explain the provisions of IDEA to determine if it accords to parents rights of their own that can be vindi­ cated in court proceedings, or alternatively, whether the Act allows them, in their status as parents, to represent their child in court proceedings.

Respondent Parma City School District, a participant in IDEA’s educational spending program, accepts federal funds for assistance in the education of children with disabilities.

As a condition of receiving funds, it must comply with IDEA’s mandates. IDEA requires that the school district provide Jacob with a “free appropriate public education,” which must operate in accordance with the IEP that Jacob’s parents, along with school officials and other individuals, de­ velop as members of Jacob’s “IEP Team.” Brief for Peti­ tioners 3 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The school district proposed an IEP for the 2003–2004 school year that would have placed Jacob at a public elemen­ tary school. Regarding this IEP as deficient under IDEA, Jacob’s nonlawyer parents availed themselves of the adminis­ trative review provided by IDEA. They filed a complaint alleging respondent had failed to provide Jacob with a free appropriate public education; they appealed the hearing of­ ficer’s rejection of the claims in this complaint to a state-level review officer; and after losing that appeal they filed, on their

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

521

Opinion of the Court

own behalf and on behalf of Jacob, a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In reliance upon 20 U. S. C. § 1415(i)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) they challenged the administrative decision, alleging, among other matters: that Jacob had not been provided with a free appro­ priate public education; that his IEP was inadequate; and that the school district had failed to follow procedures man­ dated by IDEA. Pending the resolution of these challenges, the Winkelmans had enrolled Jacob in a private school at their own expense. They had also obtained counsel to assist them with certain aspects of the proceedings, although they filed their federal complaint, and later their appeal, without the aid of an attorney. The Winkelmans’ complaint sought reversal of the administrative decision, reimbursement for private-school expenditures and attorney’s fees already in­ curred, and, it appears, declaratory relief.

The District Court granted respondent’s motion for judg­ ment on the pleadings, finding it had provided Jacob with a free appropriate public education. Petitioners, proceeding without counsel, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Relying on its recent decision in Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School Dist., 409 F. 3d 753 (2005), the Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the Winkelmans’ appeal unless they obtained counsel to repre­ sent Jacob. See Order in No. 05–3886 (Nov. 4, 2005), App. A to Pet. for Cert. 1a. In Cavanaugh the Court of Appeals had rejected the proposition that IDEA allows nonlawyer parents raising IDEA claims to proceed pro se in federal court. The court ruled that the right to a free appropriate public education “belongs to the child alone,” 409 F. 3d, at 757, not to both the parents and the child. It followed, the court held, that “any right on which the [parents] could pro­ ceed on their own behalf would be derivative” of the child’s right, ibid., so that parents bringing IDEA claims were not appearing on their own behalf, ibid. See also 28 U. S. C.

§ 1654 (allowing parties to prosecute their own claims pro

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 522 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

se). As for the parents’ alternative argument, the court held, nonlawyer parents cannot litigate IDEA claims on be­ half of their child because IDEA does not abrogate the common-law rule prohibiting nonlawyer parents from repre­ senting minor children. 409 F. 3d, at 756. As the court in Cavanaugh acknowledged, its decision brought the Sixth Circuit in direct conflict with the First Circuit, which had concluded, under a theory of “statutory joint rights,” that the Act accords to parents the right to assert IDEA claims on their own behalf. See Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional School Dist., 346 F. 3d 247, 249, 250 (CA1 2003).

Petitioners sought review in this Court. In light of the disagreement among the Courts of Appeals as to whether a nonlawyer parent of a child with a disability may prosecute IDEA actions pro se in federal court, we granted certiorari.

549 U. S. 990 (2006). Compare Cavanaugh, supra, with Maroni, supra; see also Mosely v. Board of Ed. of Chicago, 434 F. 3d 527 (CA7 2006); Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Ed., 161 F. 3d 225 (CA3 1998); Wenger v. Canastota Central School Dist., 146 F. 3d 123 (CA2 1998) (per curiam); Devine

v. Indian River Cty. School Bd., 121 F. 3d 576 (CA11 1997).

Our resolution of this case turns upon the significance of IDEA’s interlocking statutory provisions. Petitioners’ pri­ mary theory is that the Act makes parents real parties in interest to IDEA actions, not “mer[e] guardians of their chil­ dren’s rights.” Brief for Petitioners 16. If correct, this allows Mr. and Mrs. Winkelman back into court, for there is no question that a party may represent his or her own inter­ ests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28

U. S. C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties

may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . ”). Petitioners cannot cite a specific provision in IDEA mandating in direct and explicit terms that parents have the status of real parties in interest. They instead

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

523

Opinion of the Court base their argument on a comprehensive reading of IDEA.

Taken as a whole, they contend, the Act leads to the neces­ sary conclusion that parents have independent, enforceable rights. Brief for Petitioners 14 (citing Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 543 U. S. 50, 60 (2004)). Respondent, ac­ cusing petitioners of “knit[ting] together various provisions pulled from the crevices of the statute” to support these claims, Brief for Respondent 19, reads the text of IDEA to mean that any redressable rights under the Act belong only to children, id., at 19–40.

We agree that the text of IDEA resolves the question pre­ sented. We recognize, in addition, that a proper interpreta­ tion of the Act requires a consideration of the entire statu­ tory scheme. See Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481, 486 (2006). Turning to the current version of IDEA, which the parties agree governs this case, we begin with an overview of the relevant statutory provisions.

The goals of IDEA include “ensur[ing] that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education” and “ensur[ing] that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.” 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A)–(B) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). To this end, the Act includes provisions governing four areas of par­ ticular relevance to the Winkelmans’ claim: procedures to be followed when developing a child’s IEP; criteria governing the sufficiency of an education provided to a child; mecha­ nisms for review that must be made available when there are objections to the IEP or to other aspects of IDEA pro­ ceedings; and the requirement in certain circumstances that States reimburse parents for various expenses. See gener­ ally §§ 1412(a)(10), 1414, 1415. Although our discussion of these four areas does not identify all the illustrative provi­ sions, we do take particular note of certain terms that man­ date or otherwise describe parental involvement.

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 524 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

IDEA requires school districts to develop an IEP for each child with a disability, see §§ 1412(a)(4), 1414(d), with parents playing “a significant role” in this process, Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. 49, 53 (2005). Parents serve as members of the team that develops the IEP. § 1414(d)(1)(B). The “con­ cerns” parents have “for enhancing the education of their child” must be considered by the team. § 1414(d)(3)(A)(ii).

IDEA accords parents additional protections that apply throughout the IEP process. See, e. g., § 1414(d)(4)(A) (re­ quiring the IEP Team to revise the IEP when appropriate to address certain information provided by the parents); § 1414(e) (requiring States to “ensure that the parents of [a child with a disability] are members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their child”). The statute also sets up general procedural safeguards that pro­ tect the informed involvement of parents in the development of an education for their child. See, e. g., § 1415(a) (requiring States to “establish and maintain procedures . . . to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaran­ teed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education”); § 1415(b)(1) (mandating that States provide an opportunity for parents to examine all relevant records). See generally §§ 1414, 1415. A central purpose of the parental protections is to facilitate the provi­ sion of a “ ‘free appropriate public education,’ ” § 1401(9), which must be made available to the child “in conformity with the [IEP],” § 1401(9)(D).

The Act defines a “free appropriate public education” pur­ suant to an IEP to be an educational instruction “specially designed . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” § 1401(29), coupled with any additional “ ‘related services’ ” that are “required to assist a child with a disabil­ ity to benefit from [that instruction],” § 1401(26)(A). See also § 1401(9). The education must, among other things, be provided “under public supervision and direction,” “meet the standards of the State educational agency,” and “include an

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

525

Opinion of the Court

appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved.” Ibid. The instruc­ tion must, in addition, be provided at “no cost to parents.” § 1401(29). See generally Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982) (discussing the meaning of “free appropriate pub­ lic education” as used in the statutory precursor to IDEA).

When a party objects to the adequacy of the education provided, the construction of the IEP, or some related mat­ ter, IDEA provides procedural recourse: It requires that a State provide “[a]n opportunity for any party to present a complaint . . . with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” § 1415(b)(6). By presenting a complaint a party is able to pursue a process of review that, as relevant, begins with a preliminary meeting “where the parents of the child discuss their complaint” and the local educational agency “is provided the opportunity to [reach a resolution].” § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(IV). If the agency “has not resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of the parents within 30 days,” § 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii), the parents may request an “impartial due process hearing,” § 1415(f)(1)(A), which must be conducted either by the local educational agency or by the state educa­ tional agency, ibid., and where a hearing officer will resolve issues raised in the complaint, § 1415(f)(3).

IDEA sets standards the States must follow in conduct­ ing these hearings. Among other things, it indicates that the hearing officer’s decision “shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child re­ ceived a free appropriate public education,” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i), and that, “[i]n matters alleging a procedural violation,” the officer may find a child “did not receive a free appropriate public education,” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii), only if the violation

“(I) impeded the child’s right to a free appropriate public education;

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 526 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

“(II) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parents’ child; or

“(III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” Ibid.

If the local educational agency, rather than the state edu­ cational agency, conducts this hearing, then “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered in such a hearing may appeal such findings and decision to the State educational agency.” § 1415(g)(1). Once the state educa­ tional agency has reached its decision, an aggrieved party may commence suit in federal court: “Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made [by the hearing officer] shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint.” § 1415(i)(2)(A); see also § 1415(i)(1).

IDEA, finally, provides for at least two means of cost re­ covery that inform our analysis. First, in certain circum­ stances it allows a court or hearing officer to require a state agency “to reimburse the parents [of a child with a disabil­ ity] for the cost of [private-school] enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child.” § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). Second, it sets forth rules governing when and to what extent a court may award attorney’s fees.

See § 1415(i)(3)(B). Included in this section is a provision allowing an award “to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability.” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I).

Petitioners construe these various provisions to accord parents independent, enforceable rights under IDEA. We agree. The parents enjoy enforceable rights at the adminis­ trative stage, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert these rights in federal court.

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

527

Opinion of the Court

The statute sets forth procedures for resolving disputes in a manner that, in the Act’s express terms, contemplates par­ ents will be the parties bringing the administrative com­ plaints. In addition to the provisions we have cited, we refer also to § 1415(b)(8) (requiring a state educational agency to “develop a model form to assist parents in filing a complaint”); § 1415(c)(2) (addressing the response an agency must provide to a “parent’s due process complaint notice”); and § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) (referring to “the parent’s complaint”). A wide range of review is available: Administrative com­ plaints may be brought with respect to “any matter relating to . . . the provision of a free appropriate public education.” § 1415(b)(6)(A). Claims raised in these complaints are then resolved at impartial due process hearings, where, again, the statute makes clear that parents will be participating as parties. See generally supra, at 525–526. See also § 1415(f)(3)(C) (indicating “[a] parent or agency shall request an impartial due process hearing” within a certain period of time); § 1415(e)(2)(A)(ii) (referring to “a parent’s right to a due process hearing”). The statute then grants “[a]ny party aggrieved by the findings and decision made [by the hearing officer] . . . the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint.” § 1415(i)(2)(A).

Nothing in these interlocking provisions excludes a parent who has exercised his or her own rights from statutory pro­ tection the moment the administrative proceedings end.

Put another way, the Act does not sub silentio or by implica­ tion bar parents from seeking to vindicate the rights ac­ corded to them once the time comes to file a civil action.

Through its provisions for expansive review and extensive parental involvement, the statute leads to just the opposite result.

Respondent, resisting this line of analysis, asks us to read these provisions as contemplating parental involvement only to the extent parents represent their child’s interests. In respondent’s view IDEA accords parents nothing more than

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 528 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

“collateral tools related to the child’s underlying substan­ tive rights—not freestanding or independently enforceable rights.” Brief for Respondent 25.

This interpretation, though, is foreclosed by provisions of the statute. IDEA defines one of its purposes as seeking “to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.” § 1400(d)(1)(B).

The word “rights” in the quoted language refers to the rights of parents as well as the rights of the child; otherwise the grammatical structure would make no sense.

Further provisions confirm this view. IDEA mandates that educational agencies establish procedures “to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaran­ teed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education.” § 1415(a). It presumes parents have rights of their own when it defines how States might provide for the transfer of the “rights accorded to par­ ents” by IDEA, § 1415(m)(1)(B), and it prohibits the raising of certain challenges “[n]otwithstanding any other individ­ ual right of action that a parent or student may maintain under [the relevant provisions of IDEA],” §§ 1401(10)(E), 1412(a)(14)(E). To adopt respondent’s reading of the statute would require an interpretation of these statutory provisions (and others) far too strained to be correct.

Defending its countertextual reading of the statute, re­ spondent cites a decision by a Court of Appeals concluding that the Act’s “references to parents are best understood as accommodations to the fact of the child’s incapacity.” Doe

v. Board of Ed. of Baltimore Cty., 165 F. 3d 260, 263 (CA4

1998); see also Brief for Respondent 30. This, according to respondent, requires us to interpret all references to parents’ rights as referring in implicit terms to the child’s rights— which, under this view, are the only enforceable rights ac­ corded by IDEA. Even if we were inclined to ignore the plain text of the statute in considering this theory, we dis­ agree that the sole purpose driving IDEA’s involvement of

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

529

Opinion of the Court

parents is to facilitate vindication of a child’s rights. It is not a novel proposition to say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education and upbringing of their child.

See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534–535 (1925) (acknowledging “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399–401 (1923). There is no necessary bar or obstacle in the law, then, to finding an intention by Congress to grant parents a stake in the entitlements created by IDEA. Without ques­ tion a parent of a child with a disability has a particular and personal interest in fulfilling “our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabili­ ties.” § 1400(c)(1).

We therefore find no reason to read into the plain language of the statute an implicit rejection of the notion that Con­ gress would accord parents independent, enforceable rights concerning the education of their children. We instead in­ terpret the statute’s references to parents’ rights to mean what they say: that IDEA includes provisions conveying rights to parents as well as to children.

A variation on respondent’s argument has persuaded some Courts of Appeals. The argument is that while a parent can be a “party aggrieved” for aspects of the hearing officer’s findings and decision, he or she cannot be a “party ag­ grieved” with respect to all IDEA-based challenges. Under this view the causes of action available to a parent might relate, for example, to various procedural mandates, see, e. g., Collinsgru, 161 F. 3d, at 233, and reimbursement demands, see, e. g., § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii). The argument supporting this conclusion proceeds as follows: Because a “party aggrieved” is, by definition, entitled to a remedy, and parents are, under IDEA, only entitled to certain procedures and reimburse­ ments as remedies, a parent cannot be a “party aggrieved”

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 530 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court with regard to any claim not implicating these limited matters.

This argument is contradicted by the statutory provisions we have recited. True, there are provisions in IDEA stat­ ing parents are entitled to certain procedural protections and reimbursements; but the statute prevents us from placing too much weight on the implications to be drawn when other entitlements are accorded in less clear language. We find little support for the inference that parents are excluded by implication whenever a child is mentioned, and vice versa.

Compare, e. g., § 1411(e)(3)(E) (barring States from using cer­ tain funds for costs associated with actions “brought on be­ half of a child” but failing to acknowledge that actions might also be brought on behalf of a parent) with § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) (allowing recovery of attorney’s fees to a “prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability” but failing to acknowledge that a child might also be a prevailing party).

Without more, then, the language in IDEA confirming that parents enjoy particular procedural and reimbursement­ related rights does not resolve whether they are also entitled to enforce IDEA’s other mandates, including the one most fundamental to the Act: the provision of a free appropriate public education to a child with a disability.

We consider the statutory structure. The IEP proceed­ ings entitle parents to participate not only in the implemen­ tation of IDEA’s procedures but also in the substantive for­ mulation of their child’s educational program. Among other things, IDEA requires the IEP Team, which includes the parents as members, to take into account any “concerns” par­ ents have “for enhancing the education of their child” when it formulates the IEP. § 1414(d)(3)(A)(ii). The IEP, in turn, sets the boundaries of the central entitlement provided by IDEA: It defines a “ ‘free appropriate public education’ ” for that parent’s child. § 1401(9).

The statute also empowers parents to bring challenges based on a broad range of issues. The parent may seek a

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

531

Opinion of the Court

hearing on “any matter relating to the identification, evalua­ tion, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child. ” § 1415(b)(6)(A). To resolve these challenges a hearing offi­ cer must make a decision based on whether the child “re­ ceived a free appropriate public education.” § 1415(f)(3)(E).

When this hearing has been conducted by a local educational agency rather than a state educational agency, “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered in such a hearing may appeal such findings and decision” to the state educational agency. § 1415(g)(1). Judicial review follows, authorized by a broadly worded provision phrased in the same terms used to describe the prior stage of review: “Any party aggrieved” may bring “a civil action.” § 1415(i)(2)(A).

These provisions confirm that IDEA, through its text and structure, creates in parents an independent stake not only in the procedures and costs implicated by this process but also in the substantive decisions to be made. We therefore conclude that IDEA does not differentiate, through isolated references to various procedures and remedies, between the rights accorded to children and the rights accorded to parents. As a consequence, a parent may be a “party ag­ grieved” for purposes of § 1415(i)(2) with regard to “any matter” implicating these rights. See § 1415(b)(6)(A). The status of parents as parties is not limited to matters that relate to procedure and cost recovery. To find otherwise would be inconsistent with the collaborative framework and expansive system of review established by the Act. Cf.

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F., 526

U. S. 66, 73 (1999) (looking to IDEA’s “overall statutory

scheme” to interpret its provisions).

Our conclusion is confirmed by noting the incongruous re­ sults that would follow were we to accept the proposition that parents’ IDEA rights are limited to certain nonsubstan­ tive matters. The statute’s procedural and reimbursement­ related rights are intertwined with the substantive adequacy

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 532 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

of the education provided to a child, see, e. g., § 1415(f)(3)(E), see also § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii), and it is difficult to disentangle the provisions in order to conclude that some rights adhere to both parent and child while others do not. Were we nev­ ertheless to recognize a distinction of this sort it would im­ pose upon parties a confusing and onerous legal regime, one worsened by the absence of any express guidance in IDEA concerning how a court might in practice differentiate be­ tween these matters. It is, in addition, out of accord with the statute’s design to interpret the Act to require that par­ ents prove the substantive inadequacy of their child’s educa­ tion as a predicate for obtaining, for example, reimbursement under § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii), yet to prevent them from obtaining a judgment mandating that the school district provide their child with an educational program demonstrated to be an appropriate one. The adequacy of the educational program is, after all, the central issue in the litigation. The provi­ sions of IDEA do not set forth these distinctions, and we decline to infer them.

The bifurcated regime suggested by the courts that have employed it, moreover, leaves some parents without a rem­ edy. The statute requires, in express terms, that States provide a child with a free appropriate public education “at public expense,” § 1401(9)(A), including specially designed instruction “at no cost to parents,” § 1401(29). Parents may seek to enforce this mandate through the federal courts, we conclude, because among the rights they enjoy is the right to a free appropriate public education for their child.

Under the countervailing view, which would make a parent’s ability to enforce IDEA dependant on certain procedural and reimbursement-related rights, a parent whose disabled child has not received a free appropriate public education would have recourse in the federal courts only under two circum­ stances: when the parent happens to have some claim related to the procedures employed; and when he or she is able to incur, and has in fact incurred, expenses creating a right to

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

533

Opinion of the Court

reimbursement. Otherwise the adequacy of the child’s edu­ cation would not be regarded as relevant to any cause of action the parent might bring; and, as a result, only the child could vindicate the right accorded by IDEA to a free appro­ priate public education.

The potential for injustice in this result is apparent.

What is more, we find nothing in the statute to indicate that when Congress required States to provide adequate instruc­ tion to a child “at no cost to parents,” it intended that only some parents would be able to enforce that mandate. The statute instead takes pains to “ensure that the rights of chil­ dren with disabilities and parents of such children are pro­ tected.” § 1400(d)(1)(B). See, e. g., § 1415(e)(2) (requiring that States implement procedures to ensure parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provi­ sion of a free appropriate public education); § 1415(e)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring that mediation procedures not be “used to deny or delay a parent’s right to a due process hearing . . . or to deny any other rights afforded under this subchapter”); cf. § 1400(c)(3) (noting IDEA’s success in “ensuring children with disabilities and the families of such children access to a free appropriate public education”).

We conclude IDEA grants parents independent, enforce­ able rights. These rights, which are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement-related matters, encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for the parents’ child.

Respondent contends, though, that even under the reason­ ing we have now explained petitioners cannot prevail with­ out overcoming a further difficulty. Citing our opinion in Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548

U. S. 291 (2006), respondent argues that statutes passed pur­

suant to the Spending Clause, such as IDEA, must provide “ ‘clear notice’ ” before they can burden a State with some new condition, obligation, or liability. Brief for Respondent

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 534 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of the Court

41. Respondent contends that because IDEA is, at best,

ambiguous as to whether it accords parents independent rights, it has failed to provide clear notice of this condition to the States. See id., at 40–49.

Respondent’s reliance on Arlington is misplaced. In Ar­ lington we addressed whether IDEA required States to re­ imburse experts’ fees to prevailing parties in IDEA actions. “[W]hen Congress attaches conditions to a State’s acceptance of federal funds,” we explained, “the conditions must be set out ‘unambiguously.’ ” 548 U. S., at 296 (quoting Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981)). The question to be answered in Arlington, there­ fore, was whether IDEA “furnishes clear notice regarding the liability at issue.” 548 U. S., at 296. We found it did not.

The instant case presents a different issue, one that does not invoke the same rule. Our determination that IDEA grants to parents independent, enforceable rights does not impose any substantive condition or obligation on States they would not otherwise be required by law to observe.

The basic measure of monetary recovery, moreover, is not expanded by recognizing that some rights repose in both the parent and the child. Were we considering a statute other than the one before us, the Spending Clause argument might have more force: A determination by the Court that some distinct class of people has independent, enforceable rights might result in a change to the States’ statutory obligations.

But that is not the case here.

Respondent argues our ruling will, as a practical matter, increase costs borne by the States as they are forced to de­ fend against suits unconstrained by attorneys trained in the law and the rules of ethics. Effects such as these do not suffice to invoke the concerns under the Spending Clause.

Furthermore, IDEA does afford relief for the States in cer­ tain cases. The Act empowers courts to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing educational agency whenever a parent

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

535

Opinion of Scalia, J.

has presented a “complaint or subsequent cause of action . . . for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnec­ essary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III). This provision allows some relief when a party has proceeded in violation of these standards.

The Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the Winkel­ mans’ appeal for lack of counsel. Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. The decision by Congress to grant parents these rights was consistent with the purpose of IDEA and fully in accord with our social and legal tradi­ tions. It is beyond dispute that the relationship between a parent and child is sufficient to support a legally cognizable interest in the education of one’s child; and, what is more, Congress has found that “the education of children with disa­ bilities can be made more effective by . . . strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home.” § 1400(c)(5).

In light of our holding we need not reach petitioners’ alter­ native argument, which concerns whether IDEA entitles parents to litigate their child’s claims pro se.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, con­ curring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

I would hold that parents have the right to proceed pro se under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV), when they seek reimbursement for private school expenses

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 536 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of Scalia, J.

or redress for violations of their own procedural rights, but not when they seek a judicial determination that their child’s free appropriate public education (or FAPE) is substan­ tively inadequate.

Whether parents may bring suits under the IDEA without a lawyer depends upon the interaction between the IDEA and the general pro se provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The latter, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1654, provides that “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” (Empha­ sis added.) The IDEA’s right-to-sue provision, 20 U. S. C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), provides that “[a]ny party aggrieved by the findings and decision [of a hearing officer] shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the [administrative] complaint.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, when parents are “parties aggrieved” under the IDEA, they are “parties” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1654, enti­ tled to sue on their own behalf.1

As both parties agree, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 7; Brief for Respondent 37, “party aggrieved” means “[a] party entitled to a remedy; esp., a party whose personal, pecuniary, or prop­ erty rights have been adversely affected by another person’s actions or by a court’s decree or judgment,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed. 2004); see also ante, at 529–530.

This case thus turns on the rights that the IDEA accords to parents, and the concomitant remedies made available to them. Only with respect to such rights and remedies are

1 As the Court notes, ante, at 520, 535, petitioners also argue that even if parents do not have their own rights under the statute, they nonetheless may act on behalf of their child without retaining a lawyer. Both sides agree, however, that the common law generally prohibited lay parents from representing their children in court, a manifestation of the more gen­ eral common-law rule that nonattorneys cannot litigate the interests of another. See Brief for Petitioners 37; Brief for Respondent 9–10; see also,

e. g., Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Ed., 161 F. 3d 225, 232 (CA3 1998).

Nothing in the IDEA suggests a departure from that rule.

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

537

Opinion of Scalia, J.

parents properly viewed as “parties aggrieved,” capable of filing their own cases in federal court.

A review of the statutory text makes clear that, as rele­ vant here, the IDEA grants parents only two types of rights.2 First, under certain circumstances “a court or a hearing officer may require the [school district] to reimburse the parents” for private school expenditures “if the court or hearing officer finds that the [school district] had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child.” 20

U. S. C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis

added). Second, parents are accorded a variety of proce­ dural protections, both during the development of their child’s individualized education program (IEP), see, e. g., § 1414(d)(1)(B)(i) (parents are members of their child’s IEP team); § 1415(b)(1) (parents must have an opportunity to ex­ amine records and participate in IEP meetings), and in any subsequent administrative challenges, see, e. g., §§ 1415(b)(6),

(8) (parents may file administrative due process complaints).

It is clear that parents may object to procedural viola­ tions at the administrative due process hearing, see § 1415(b)(6)(A), and that a hearing officer may provide relief to parents for certain procedural infractions, see § 1415(f) (3)(E)(ii). Because the rights to reimbursement and to the various procedural protections are accorded to parents them­ selves, they are “parties aggrieved” when those rights are infringed, and may accordingly proceed pro se when seeking to vindicate them.3

2 Because the grant of those rights is clear, and because I find no statu­ tory basis for any other rights, I need not decide whether the Spending Clause’s “clear notice” requirement is applicable here. Cf. Arlington Cen­ tral School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U. S. 291, 296 (2006).

3 Of course when parents assert procedural violations, they must also allege that those violations adversely affected the outcome of the proceed­ ings. Under Article III, one does not have standing to challenge a proce­ dural violation without having some concrete interest in the outcome of the proceeding to which the violation pertains, see Lujan v. Defenders of

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 538 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of Scalia, J.

.

. to all children with disabilities .

The Court goes further, however, concluding that parents may proceed pro se not only when they seek reimbursement or assert procedural violations, but also when they challenge the substantive adequacy of their child’s FAPE—so that par­ ents may act without a lawyer in every IDEA case. See ante, at 527–533. In my view, this sweeps far more broadly than the text allows. Out of this sprawling statute the Court cannot identify even a single provision stating that parents have the substantive right to a FAPE. The reason for this is readily understandable: The right to a free appro­ priate public education obviously inheres in the child, for it is he who receives the education. As the IDEA instructs, participating States must provide a “free appropriate pub­ lic education . § 1412(a)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). The statute is replete with references to the fact that a FAPE belongs to the child.

See, e. g., § 1400(d)(1)(A) (IDEA designed “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free ap­ propriate public education”); § 1408(a)(2)(C)(i) (referring to “the right of a child” to “receive a free appropriate public education”); § 1411(e)(3)(F)(i) (same); § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) (referring to an agency “that is responsible for making a free appropriate public education available to a child”); § 1415(b)(6)(A) (referring to “the provision of a free appro­ priate public education to [a] child”). The parents of a dis­ abled child no doubt have an interest in seeing their child receive a proper education. But there is a difference be­ tween an interest and a statutory right. The text of the IDEA makes clear that parents have no right to the educa­ tion itself.4

.

.

.”

Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 571–578 (1992), here the parents’ interest in having their child receive an appropriate education.

4 Nor can a parental right to education be justified, as the Court at­ tempts, see ante, at 532–533, on the theory that the IDEA gives parents a legal right to free schooling for their child. Parents acquire such a right

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

539

Opinion of Scalia, J.

The Court concedes, as it must, that while the IDEA gives parents the right to reimbursement and procedural protec­ tion in explicit terms, it does not do so for the supposed right to the education itself. Ante, at 529–530. The obvious in­ ference to be drawn from the statute’s clear and explicit con­ ferral of discrete types of rights upon parents and children, respectively, is that it does not by accident confer the parent-designated rights upon children, or the children­ designated rights upon parents. The Court believes, how­ ever, that “the statute prevents us from placing too much weight on [this] implicatio[n].” Ante, at 530. That conclu­ sion is in error. Nothing in “the statute” undermines the obvious “implication” of Congress’s scheme. What the Court relies upon for its conclusion that parents have a sub­ stantive right to a FAPE is not the “statutory structure,” ibid., but rather the myriad procedural guarantees accorded to parents in the administrative process, see ante, at 530–

531. But allowing parents, by means of these guarantees,

to help shape the contours of their child’s education is simply not the same as giving them the right to that education.

Nor can the Court sensibly rely on the provisions governing due process hearings and administrative appeals, the various provisions that refer to the “parent’s complaint,” see, e. g., 20

U. S. C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), or the fact

that the right-to-sue provision, § 1415(i)(2)(A), refers to the administrative complaint, which in turn allows parents to challenge “any matter” relating to the provision of a FAPE, § 1415(b)(6)(A). These provisions prove nothing except what all parties concede: that parents may represent their child pro se at the administrative level. See Brief for Peti­ tioners 17–18, 40; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12; Brief for Respondent 13, 44; see also Collinsgru v. Pal­ myra Bd. of Ed., 161 F. 3d 225, 232 (CA3 1998). Parents

(in limited circumstances) only when they enroll their child in a private institution. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 540 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of Scalia, J.

thus have the power, at the administrative stage, to litigate all of the various rights under the statute since at that stage they are acting not only on their own behalf, but on behalf of their child as well. This tells us nothing whatever about whose rights they are.5 The Court’s spraying statutory sec­ tions about like buckshot cannot create a substantive paren­ tal right to education where none exists.

Harkening back to its earlier discussion of the IDEA’s “text and structure” (by which it means the statute’s proce­ dural protections), the Court announces the startling propo­ sition that, in fact, the “IDEA does not differentiate . . . between the rights accorded to children and the rights ac­ corded to parents.” Ante, at 531. If that were so, the Court could have spared us its painful effort to craft a dis­ tinctive parental right out of scattered procedural provi­ sions. But of course it is not so. The IDEA quite clearly

5 Contrary to indications in the Court’s opinion, ante, at 530–531, and to the apparent language of the statute, a hearing officer does not always render a decision “on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child received a free appropriate public education. ” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). That provision is “[s]ubject to clause (ii),” ibid., which provides that “[i]n matters alleging a procedural violation” a hearing officer can grant relief if “the procedural inadequacies . . . significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate pub­ lic education to the parents’ child,” § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)(II). It is true that a hearing officer who accepts such an allegation nominally grants relief by concluding that the child did not receive a FAPE, § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii), but it is clear from the structure of the statute that this is not a decision on the substantive adequacy of the FAPE, but rather the label attached to a finding of procedural defect. Petitioners agree with me on this point.

See Brief for Petitioners 31, n. 23. See also 20 U. S. C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) (“Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to preclude a hearing officer from ordering a local educational agency to com­ ply with procedural requirements under this section”). In any event, even if a hearing officer was required to render a decision on the substan­ tive adequacy of the FAPE, that feature of the statute still gives no clue as to whether parents’ vindication of that substantive right at the adminis­ trative stage is on their own behalf or on behalf of the child.

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

541

Opinion of Scalia, J.

differentiates between the rights accorded to parents and their children. See Emery v. Roanoke City School Bd., 432

F. 3d 294, 299 (CA4 2005) (“[P]arents and children are dis­

tinct legal entities under the IDEA” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As even petitioners’ amici agree, “Con­ gress specifically indicated that parents have rights under the Act that are separate from and independent of their chil­ dren’s rights.” Brief for Senator Edward M. Kennedy et al. as Amici Curiae 18. Does the Court seriously contend that a child has a right to reimbursement, when the statute most definitively provides that if “the parents of a child with a disability” enroll that child in private school, “a court . . . may require the [school district] to reimburse the parents for the cost of that enrollment”? § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added); see also Brief for Sen. Kennedy et al., supra, at 21 (“The right of reimbursement runs to the parents”). Does the Court believe that a child has a procedural right under §§ 1414(d)(1)(C)(i)–(iii) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), which gives parents the power to excuse an IEP team member from attending an IEP meeting? The IDEA does not remotely envision communal “family” rights.

The Court believes that because parents must prove the substantive inadequacy of a FAPE before obtaining reim­ bursement, § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii), and because the suitability of a FAPE may also be at issue when procedural violations are alleged, § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii), it is “out of accord with the stat­ ute’s design” to “prevent [parents] from obtaining a judg­ ment mandating that the school district provide their child” with a FAPE. Ante, at 532. That is a total non sequitur.

That Congress has required parents to demonstrate the inad­ equacy of their child’s FAPE in order to vindicate their own rights says nothing about whether parents possess an under­ lying right to education. The Court insists that the right to a FAPE is the right “most fundamental to the Act.” Ante, at 530. Undoubtedly so, but that sheds no light upon whom the right belongs to, and hence upon who can sue in their

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN 542 WINKELMAN v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.

Opinion of Scalia, J.

own right. Congress has used the phrase “party ag­ grieved,” and it is this Court’s job to apply that language, not to run from it.

The Court further believes that a distinction between pa­ rental and child rights will prove difficult to administer. I fail to see why that is so. Before today, the majority of Federal Courts of Appeals to have considered the issue have allowed parents to sue pro se with respect to some claims, but not with respect to the denial of a FAPE. See Mosely

v. Board of Ed. of Chicago, 434 F. 3d 527, 532 (CA7 2006);

Collinsgru, 161 F. 3d, at 233; Wenger v. Canastota Central School Dist., 146 F. 3d 123, 126 (CA2 1998) (per curiam); Devine v. Indian River Cty. School Bd., 121 F. 3d 576, 581,

n. 17 (CA11 1997). The Court points to no evidence suggest­

ing that this majority rule has caused any confusion in prac­ tice. Nor do I see how it could, since the statute makes clear and easily administrable distinctions between parents’ and children’s legal entitlements.

Finally, the Court charges that the approach taken by the majority of Courts of Appeals would perpetrate an “injus­ tice,” ante, at 533, since parents who do not seek reimburse­ ment or allege procedural violations would be “without a remedy,” ante, at 532. That, of course, is not true. They will have the same remedy as all parents who sue to vindi­ cate their children’s rights: the power to bring suit, repre­ sented by counsel. But even indulging the Court’s percep­ tion that it is unfair to allow some but not all IDEA parents to proceed pro se, that complaint is properly addressed to Congress, which structured the rights as it has, and limited suit to “party aggrieved.” And there are good reasons for it to have done so. Pro se cases impose unique burdens on lower courts—and on defendants, in this case the schools and school districts that must hire their own lawyers. Since pro se complaints are prosecuted essentially for free, without screening by knowledgeable attorneys, they are much more likely to be unmeritorious. And for courts to figure them

Unit: $U44

[07-24-10 11:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 550 U. S. 516 (2007)

543

Opinion of Scalia, J.

out without the assistance of plaintiff ’s counsel is much more difficult and time consuming. In both categories of pro se parental suit permitted under a proper interpretation of the statute, one or the other of these burdens is reduced. Ac­ tions seeking reimbursement are less likely to be frivolous, since not many parents will be willing to lay out the money for private education without some solid reason to believe the FAPE was inadequate. And actions alleging procedural violations can ordinarily be disposed of without the intensive record review that characterizes suits challenging the suit­ ability of a FAPE.

* * *

Petitioners sought reimbursement, alleged procedural vio­ lations, and requested a declaration that their child’s FAPE was substantively inadequate. Ante, at 521. I agree with the Court that they may proceed pro se with respect to the first two claims, but I disagree that they may do so with respect to the third.

Unit: $U45

544

Syllabus BELL ATLANTIC CORP. et al. v. TWOMBLY et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 05–1126. Argued November 27, 2006—Decided May 21, 2007

The 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company’s (AT&T) local telephone business left a system of regional service mo­ nopolies, sometimes called Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), and a separate long-distance market from which the ILECs were excluded. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 withdrew ap­ proval of the ILECs’ monopolies, “fundamentally restructur[ing] local telephone markets” and “subject[ing] [ILECs] to a host of duties in­ tended to facilitate market entry.” AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 371. It also authorized them to enter the long-distance market. “Central to the [new] scheme [was each ILEC’s] obligation . . . to share its network with” competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V.

Trinko, LLP, 540 U. S. 398, 402.

Respondents (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent a class of subscribers of local telephone and/or high-speed Internet services in this action against petitioner ILECs for claimed violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” The complaint alleges that the ILECs conspired to restrain trade (1) by engaging in parallel con­ duct in their respective service areas to inhibit the growth of upstart CLECs; and (2) by agreeing to refrain from competing against one an­ other, as indicated by their common failure to pursue attractive business opportunities in contiguous markets and by a statement by one ILEC’s chief executive officer that competing in another ILEC’s territory did not seem right. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that parallel business conduct allegations, taken alone, do not state a claim under § 1; plaintiffs must allege additional facts tending to exclude independent self-interested conduct as an explanation for the parallel actions. Reversing, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ parallel con­ duct allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss because the ILECs failed to show that there is no set of facts that would permit plaintiffs to demonstrate that the particular parallelism asserted was the product of collusion rather than coincidence.