## Facts

- Seven school-age children in the District of Columbia were identified as “exceptional” (including mental retardation, emotional disturbance, physical handicaps, hyperactivity, and behavioral problems).
- The children were denied admission to public school or excluded after admission.
- The District provided no publicly funded alternative educational placement and no periodic review of the children’s status.
- Evidence indicated thousands of similarly situated children in the District were not receiving appropriate publicly supported education.
- The District had compulsory education statutes and regulations requiring publicly supported education for school-age children, including those deemed exceptional.
- The District asserted that creating appropriate programs for all exceptional children would cost millions of dollars and that limited funds justified the failures.
- The case proceeded as a Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) class action on behalf of District school-age residents denied education because they were deemed exceptional.

## Issues

1. Whether the District must provide a free, publicly supported education appropriate to the needs and capacities of children with disabilities on the same basic entitlement as other school-age children.
2. Whether excluding, suspending, expelling, transferring, or otherwise depriving such children of public education without notice, hearing, and periodic review violates due process.
3. Whether claimed financial constraints excuse noncompliance with constitutional and statutory obligations to provide education and procedural protections.

## Decision

- The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief for the class.
- The court held the District has an affirmative duty to provide all school-age children, including exceptional children, a free publicly supported education and training appropriate to their learning capacities.
- The court held that exclusion or denial of education without adequate procedural protections violates due process.
- The court rejected lack of funds as a defense, ordering that resources be allocated so any shortfall does not fall more heavily on children with disabilities than on other children.
- The court entered a remedial decree requiring appropriate educational placement or publicly funded alternatives and requiring hearings and periodic review before and after exclusion or placement changes.

## Legal Principles

- A public school system that undertakes to provide free education must make that education available to eligible children with disabilities and tailor services to their capacities when they can benefit from instruction.
- A child’s interest in continued access to publicly supported education is a protected entitlement that cannot be withdrawn or materially altered without due process, including notice, a fair hearing, and periodic review.
- Fiscal limitations do not justify denying eligible children access to education or concentrating the effects of budget shortages on children with disabilities; available resources must be distributed on equal terms.

## Conclusion

The court required the District of Columbia to provide appropriate free public education to children with disabilities and barred their exclusion or deprivation of educational services without procedural safeguards, holding that budget limitations could not excuse denial of these statutory and constitutional protections.


Mills v. Bd. of Educ. of D.C., 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972)