## Facts

- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, New Mexico’s Governor ordered public schools to close for in-person instruction and provide remote learning in its place.
- Clarissa Hernandez and other parents of public-school students with disabilities sued the Governor and New Mexico education officials (collectively, the State).
- The parents alleged that the shift to remote learning failed to provide their children a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- The parents’ theory rested on the contention that remote learning was not workable for many students with disabilities and therefore deprived them of the special-education and related services contemplated by their IDEA entitlements.
- The State moved to dismiss, asserting that its pandemic response remained IDEA compliant because:
  - the IDEA requires provision of special-education services “to the greatest extent possible” under the circumstances;
  - students with disabilities were offered the same access to the remote-learning opportunities offered to other students; and
  - some students with disabilities could receive limited, small-group in-person instruction/services in addition to remote instruction.
- To support its interpretation of the IDEA during pandemic closures, the State relied on guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education shortly after the initial wave of COVID-related school closures.
- The DOE guidance stated that if a school continues to provide educational opportunities during a closure, it must provide students with disabilities equal access and, to the greatest extent possible, special-education and related services.
- The guidance also indicated that schools should not refrain from closing buildings or offering remote learning solely because of concerns about IDEA compliance.
- As a threshold question in resolving the motion to dismiss, the district court addressed what level of judicial deference, if any, it should afford the DOE guidance.

## Issues

1. What level of deference, if any, should the court give to the U.S. Department of Education’s COVID-19 IDEA guidance when interpreting the IDEA in this dispute?
2. Under the IDEA (as informed by its text, structure, and any persuasive agency guidance), did the parents plausibly allege that New Mexico’s pandemic-driven shift to remote learning denied students with disabilities a FAPE?
3. Should the complaint be dismissed for failure to state an IDEA claim where the State alleged it provided remote instruction and, where feasible, limited in-person services for some students with disabilities?

## Decision

- The court held that the DOE’s COVID-19 guidance did not carry the force of law and therefore was not entitled to Chevron-style deference.
- The court treated the guidance as potentially persuasive interpretive material and evaluated it under Skidmore principles (weight depending on thoroughness, consistency, and persuasive power).
- Considering the IDEA’s requirements in light of the emergency circumstances described and the DOE’s guidance, the court concluded that the IDEA does not categorically forbid remote learning during pandemic closures and contemplates provision of services to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances.
- The court determined that the parents’ allegations—framed as a broad challenge to remote learning’s suitability for many disabled students—did not plausibly establish that the State, as a matter of law, failed to meet IDEA obligations under the conditions alleged.
- The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the IDEA-based complaint.

## Legal Principles

- The IDEA requires states receiving federal funds to provide eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education through special education and related services.
- Agency guidance documents issued without the procedures and indicia of lawmaking authority generally do not receive Chevron deference.
- Nonbinding agency interpretations may receive Skidmore weight depending on their persuasiveness, including the quality of reasoning and consistency with the statutory scheme.
- In assessing IDEA compliance during extraordinary disruptions, courts look to what the statute requires in context, including the IDEA’s expectation that services be delivered to the greatest extent possible given practical constraints.
- A complaint must plead enough factual matter to state a plausible claim that defendants violated the IDEA; broad assertions that a particular instructional modality is generally ineffective for some students may be insufficient absent plausible allegations of statutory noncompliance.

## Conclusion

In *Hernandez v. Grisham*, the District of New Mexico treated the DOE’s pandemic-era IDEA guidance as nonbinding but potentially persuasive under Skidmore, and it dismissed parents’ IDEA claim challenging statewide remote learning during COVID-19 closures, concluding the pleadings did not plausibly show that New Mexico failed to satisfy IDEA obligations under the circumstances alleged.


Hernandez v. Grisham, 508 F. Supp. 3d 893 (2020)