Supreme Court Update: What Perez v. Sturgis Means for Families
In March 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that significantly impacts families of students with disabilities.
The Case Background
Miguel Luna Perez was born deaf. For 12 years, he was supposedly receiving sign language interpretation—but his "interpreter" didn't know sign language.
The Legal Issue
Miguel's family pursued both IDEA and ADA claims. The school argued he had to exhaust IDEA procedures before suing under the ADA for damages.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
IDEA exhaustion is required only when the remedy sought is one IDEA can provide.
Since IDEA doesn't provide monetary damages, Miguel didn't have to go through IDEA's system before suing under the ADA.
What This Means for Families
1. Broader Access to Damages
Families can seek monetary damages under ADA without first going through IDEA—when seeking relief IDEA can't provide.
2. Real Accountability
The threat of monetary damages creates stronger incentives for compliance.
3. Faster Path to Court
For families seeking damages, there's a more direct path to federal court.
When This Applies
- The school's conduct rises to discrimination
- You're seeking money damages
- The harm goes beyond what IDEA can address
Key Takeaways
- Monetary damages under ADA don't require IDEA exhaustion first
- Most IEP disputes still follow traditional procedures
- Consult an attorney if considering damage claims
Related reading:
Ready to Advocate for Your Child?
Navigating special education can feel overwhelming, but you don't have to do it alone. Get personalized guidance for your child's IEP journey.
Start Your Free TrialAbout the Author: This guide was created by the team at IEP Advocate.ai, a platform built by parents, for parents, to make special education advocacy accessible to everyone. Our mission is to empower parents with the tools, knowledge, and confidence to secure the services their children deserve—starting with demanding real data, not just empty promises.