## Facts

- Parents of seven children with severe behavioral disabilities sued state education officials, challenging New York regulations that prohibit “aversive interventions” as planned behavioral techniques in schools serving New York students.
- The children exhibited extreme self-injurious and aggressive behaviors that interfered with learning and safety despite extensive educational and clinical interventions.
- Each child had an individualized education program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- IEP teams recommended residential placement at an out-of-state facility that, when deemed necessary, used “aversive interventions” (e.g., restraints, helmets, and low-level electric shocks) alongside positive behavioral programming.
- New York’s regulations barred planned use of aversive interventions but allowed reasonable physical force in emergencies.
- None of the children’s IEPs expressly authorized aversive interventions, but parents alleged aversives were necessary for educational benefit and safety and that the categorical ban interfered with appropriate programming.
- The parents sought equitable relief to prevent enforcement of the prohibition and asserted claims under IDEA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment (via § 1983).
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied a preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s categorical prohibition on aversive interventions violates IDEA by denying a free appropriate public education (FAPE) or by impermissibly limiting individualized IEP development.
2. Whether the prohibition violates substantive due process, equal protection, or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as arbitrary, conscience-shocking, discriminatory, or a product of gross misjudgment.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the prohibition.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the aversives ban does not violate IDEA and does not deny FAPE.
- The court held the ban does not violate substantive due process or equal protection.
- The court held the ban does not violate § 504 because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege discrimination, animus, or gross misjudgment.
- The court affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction because plaintiffs could not show likelihood of success on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires an IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and “meaningful access” to education; it does not guarantee optimal outcomes.
- IDEA does not entitle a student to a particular educational methodology; a state may prohibit specific techniques for policy and safety reasons if students retain meaningful access to appropriate education through other services and interventions.
- Substantive due process challenges to educational policy are reviewed deferentially; a regulation must be conscience-shocking or egregiously arbitrary to violate due process.
- Facially neutral education regulations that do not implicate a suspect class or fundamental right are reviewed under rational basis; student safety and dignity provide a rational justification.
- A § 504 claim in this context requires more than disagreement with educational policy; absent plausible allegations of discriminatory motive or conduct so devoid of professional judgment as to constitute gross misjudgment, a neutral prohibition is not actionable.
- A preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success on the merits; failure to state a claim forecloses that showing.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld New York’s statewide ban on planned aversive behavioral interventions, concluding that IDEA does not require access to any specific methodology, and that the ban—grounded in safety and policy judgments—did not establish constitutional or Rehabilitation Act violations or justify injunctive relief.


Bryant v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 692 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2012)