## Facts

- The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible children and to develop an individualized education program (IEP).
- IDEA allows parents who disagree with an IEP to seek an impartial administrative due process hearing, but the statute does not specify which party bears the burden of persuasion at that hearing.
- Brian Schaffer, a student with a disability, received a proposed IEP from Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland.
- Brian’s parents challenged the IEP as inadequate to provide FAPE and initiated an IDEA due process hearing.
- The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) placed the burden of persuasion on the parents as the challengers and ruled for the school district because the parents did not carry that burden.
- The federal district court reversed, holding the school district should bear the burden of persuasion.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, reinstating the ALJ’s approach based on the general rule that the party seeking relief bears the burden.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the burden-of-persuasion question in IDEA IEP challenges.

## Issues

1. In an IDEA administrative due process hearing challenging the adequacy of an IEP, does the burden of persuasion fall on the parents or on the school district when the statute is silent?
2. Does IDEA’s purpose and structure require placing the burden of persuasion on school districts rather than applying the ordinary default rule?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit in a 6–2 decision.
- The Court held that, when IDEA is silent, the burden of persuasion rests on the party seeking relief in the due process hearing.
- In the typical case where parents challenge an IEP, the parents bear the burden of persuasion.
- The Court rejected the argument that IDEA implies a presumption that an IEP is invalid unless the school proves otherwise.
- The Court concluded that policy concerns about improving IEP quality and protecting children with disabilities did not justify reallocating the burden absent a clear directive from Congress.
- The Court noted that states may adopt different burden-allocation rules for their IDEA hearing systems, but the federal default rule governs where state law does not specify otherwise.

## Legal Principles

- When a federal statute governing an administrative adjudication is silent on burden of persuasion, the default rule applies: the party seeking relief bears the burden on the essential elements of its claim.
- IDEA does not, by its silence, create a presumption against the validity of an IEP or require a school district to prove an IEP adequate at the outset.
- Courts generally will not shift the burden of persuasion based solely on policy arguments about program goals or resource allocation without a clear indication of congressional intent.
- States may allocate the burden of persuasion differently in IDEA hearings as a matter of state law, so long as federal minimum requirements are met; the decision sets the federal default in the absence of state direction.

## Conclusion

The Court held that IDEA’s silence on burden allocation triggers the ordinary default rule: in an IDEA due process hearing challenging an IEP, the party seeking relief bears the burden of persuasion, meaning parents ordinarily must prove the IEP is inadequate unless state law provides otherwise.


Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)