## Facts

- K.D.M., a legally blind child with cerebral palsy, received special-education services from the Reedsport School District while enrolled in public school, including a vision specialist, physical therapy, and specialized equipment.
- For religious reasons, K.D.M.’s parents enrolled him in a sectarian private school, Harbor Baptist Church School.
- Oregon law allowed districts to serve private-school students but required that any special-education services be provided in a “religiously-neutral setting.”
- After the transfer, the District continued providing specialized equipment at the private school but refused to provide the vision specialist on the school’s premises.
- The District offered vision services at a nearby fire hall, provided transportation, and delivered services about ninety minutes twice weekly; the adequacy and safety of this arrangement were not disputed.
- K.D.M. sued, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Free Exercise, Establishment, and Equal Protection Clauses.
- The district court held the Oregon neutral-site rule unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement; the District and the Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether IDEA required the District to provide a vision specialist on-site at a sectarian private school attended by an IDEA-eligible student.
2. Whether requiring services in a “religiously-neutral setting,” and providing them off-site, violated the Free Exercise Clause.
3. Whether the neutral-site requirement violated the Establishment Clause.
4. Whether providing on-site services at secular schools but off-site services for sectarian schools violated Equal Protection.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment invalidating the Oregon neutral-site rule and upheld the District’s off-site service delivery.
- IDEA did not require on-premises provision of the vision specialist at the parochial school where adequate services were provided at a nearby neutral location.
- The neutral-site requirement did not violate Free Exercise because it was religion-neutral and generally applicable, and any burden was incidental.
- The requirement did not violate the Establishment Clause because it reflected a permissible effort to avoid state entanglement with religious instruction.
- The differential treatment survived Equal Protection review because it was rationally related to legitimate concerns about church–state separation.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA does not confer an entitlement to receive publicly funded special-education services on the premises of a private religious school when comparable, appropriate services are provided at an accessible neutral site.
- A neutral and generally applicable rule governing the location of government-provided educational services does not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because it makes participation in a religious-school placement less convenient.
- A state may structure special-education services to reduce the risk of perceived endorsement of, or entanglement with, religious education without thereby violating the Establishment Clause.
- Under rational-basis review, differing service-delivery locations for students in sectarian versus secular schools may be justified by legitimate governmental interests in avoiding church–state entanglement.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that providing a vision specialist to a disabled student attending a parochial school at a nearby neutral site satisfied IDEA and that Oregon’s neutral-site requirement, as applied, did not violate the Free Exercise, Establishment, or Equal Protection Clauses.


K.D.M. ex rel. W.J.M. v. Reedsport Sch. Dist., 196 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1999)