A.D. v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Educ., No. 12-17610 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a severely disabled student, filed suit arguing that he was entitled to remain at a private school he had been attending since the age of seven. The Department issued a formal notice that plaintiff's special education placement at the school would end when he turned 20 years old. Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to remain at the school until he was 22 years old. At issue on appeal was whether the "stay put" provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415j, applied to a student who has exceeded a state-imposed age limit on eligibility for public education. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the district court correctly granted plaintiff's motion for stay put. Plaintiff was entitled to remain at the school as his stay-put placement from the date he filed his administrative complaint and he was entitled to remain there until his case was finally resolved.
Court Description: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s order that a student was entitled to remain in his special-education placement pending resolution of his challenge under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to “Act 163,” a Hawaii law cutting off special-education eligibility for students who reach age 20. The panel held that the district court’s “stay put” order was a collateral order subject to interlocutory appeal. The panel held that even though the student had turned 22, the age at which the IDEA cuts off special-education eligibility for all disabled children, the appeal was not moot because the issue of the availability of the stay-put injunction to students challenging Act 163 was capable of repetition, yet evading review. The panel held that the IDEA’s stay-put provision applied, even though the student had exceeded the state- imposed limit on eligibility for public education, because when he filed his complaint he was still fully eligible for public special education under Hawaii law. The panel distinguished a Seventh Circuit case, which held that the stay- put provision ceased to function after a student reached the IDEA’s statutory age limit by turning 22, on the basis that the Hawaiian student was challenging the legality of the Act 163 deadline itself.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.