Call AFC's Education Helpline
Monday to Thursday
10 am to 4 pm
Christian is a 19-year-old from El Salvador who was in the 9th grade for the fifth time and whose principal had suggested that he sign himself out of high school.
Receive email updates or text alerts from AFC.
Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.
AFC signed on to an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF) and Impact Fund in support of the rights of transgender students. The case, brought on behalf of 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, challenges a school board resolution regarding access to sex-segregated restrooms. The brief argues that the policy is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and violates Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination by schools.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
AFC submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Endrew F., which presents the important question of what makes an education “appropriate” as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP drafted the brief on behalf of AFC.
Stacy Fry and Brent Fry, et al. v. Napoleon Community Schools, et al.
AFC and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) submitted an amicus brief in support of petitioners Stacy and Brent Fry, the parents of a student with cerebral palsy who was prescribed a service dog to aid her with everyday tasks. The brief argues that parents and children should not be required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative remedies when the relief is available only under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act and not the IDEA.
State of New York v. Marquan W. Mackey-Meggs
AFC signed on to an amicus brief drafted and filed by the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP before the New York State Court of Appeals regarding Albany County’s Cyber-bullying Law. The brief argues that criminalizing cyber-bullying will have negative effects – namely, reinforcing and perpetuating the School-to-Prison Pipeline, pushing students out of school and into the criminal justice system. The brief also argues that better alternatives exist for dealing with cyber-bulling, such as school climate reform and restorative practices.
E.M. v. New York City Department of Education
AFC filed an amicus letter brief urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to affirm that a parent whose child has been denied a free appropriate public education may file an impartial hearing seeking the school district to pay tuition at a private school, even if the parent has not made any payments to the private school.
M.S. v. New York City Department of Education
The law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP drafted and filed a brief on AFC’s behalf before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the standard of review that a court should use on appeals of impartial hearing orders in special education cases.
T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion suggesting that a school district need not provide to a parent timely notice of an appropriate school placement, or provide an appropriate placement at all, if the child’s individualized education program recommended an appropriate program. The law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP drafted and filed an amicus brief on AFC’s behalf requesting that the Second Circuit reconsider or amend its opinion to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation of its holding that would deny students with disabilities an appropriate education.
Horne v. Flores
AFC, along with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Horne v. Flores urging that the requirements in the Equal Education Opportunity Act (EEOA) continue to protect students who do not speak English and are not diminished by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In Horne v. Flores, English language learners in Nogales, Arizona claimed that the inadequate funding for educational programming for English Language Learners in the state violated the EEOA. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. The Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, the President of the Arizona Senate, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing, among other things, that districts cannot violate the EEOA if they meet the benchmarks for school achievement under NCLB. AFC’s brief sets forth the arguments why NCLB does not replace the EEOA’s requirements, detailing a number of examples in New York City and other communities where the schools are not providing for the needs of English Language Learners, but the schools are meeting NCLB benchmarks. New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP assisted AFC and AALDEF in drafting the brief.