Major court cases that have influenced special education civil rights of children with disabilities*
1929—By this time there were 100 programs for teachers of the handicapped, that is, for students taught
outside of regular education. Regular education and special education were separate services, with special
education programs being developed for severely handicapped children.
1945—Mendez v Westminster
A US District Court outlawed the segregation of Mexican children in schools in Orange County, CA.
1954—Brown v Board of Education
The landmark litigation in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregating students based on race was
unconstitutional; rejected "separate but equal" based on 14 th Amendment and established the right of all
children to an equal opportunity for an education.
1964—Civil Rights Act (PL 88-352)
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
1965—Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 89-10)
Provided money to state and local districts for developing programs for economically disadvantaged
students and for students with disabilities
1967—Hanson v Hobson
A US District Court declared that a tracking system in which children were placed into either regular or
special classes based on scores on intelligence tests was unconstitutional because it discriminated against
African American and poor children.
1970—Diana v State Board of Education
In California, the court ruled that educational placement testing must be culturally neutral and conducted in
the language of the child.
1972—PARC, Bowman, et al v Commonwealth of Penn
US District Court ruled that students with mental retardation have a right to a free, appropriate, public
education, regardless of severity of handicapping condition.
1972—Mills vs Board of Education
US District Court affirmed that students cannot be excluded from school because of a disability.
1973—PL 93-112 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
A person cannot, on the basis of a disability, be excluded from any program or activity receiving federal
funds.
1974—Lau v Nichols
The Supreme Court concluded that the civil rights of students who do not understand the language of
instruction are being violated.
1975—PL 94-142 (EAHCA)
Mandated FAPE (free, appropriate education for all children with disabilities age 6-21); protected the rights
of parents and children in educational decision-making; required the development of an IEP for each child
with a disability; students must be educated in least restrictive environment (LRE)
1982—Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District vs Rowley
The US Supreme Court upheld the right of every child with a disability to a personalized program of
instruction and necessary services. First case based on PL 94-142.
1986—EAHCA Amendment (PL 99-457)
Extends FAPE to 3-5 year olds.
1
1988—Honig v Doe
The US Supreme Court ruled that students with disabilities cannot be excluded from school for any
misbehavior that is related to a disability (but educational services may cease if conduct is not related to a
disability).
1990—ADA (PL 101-476 Americans with Disabilities Act)
Provides civil rights protection against discrimination to all citizens with disabilities, and provides access to
all citizens to public services.
1997—IDEA (PL 105-17 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
Adds several major provisions to those outlined in PL 94-142, including team composition, students must
have access to the general curriculum, IEP must address positive behavioral support plans when
appropriate, students must be included in state testing, requirements for manifestation determination.
1998—Prop 227 California
Eliminated bilingual education in California (2002, Question 2 in Massachusetts).
2001—NCLB (Reauthorization of ESEA, PL 105-17)
Established educational requirements for student proficiency and requirements that all teachers be “highly
qualified.”
2004—Reauthorization of IDEA (PL 108-446)
Retained key components and principles of IDEA. State regulations addressing areas of change have not
been provided yet. Key change is that “response to instruction” may be used to identify learning
disabilities.
*Adapted from, Heward, 2006; Choate, 1997; and Nieto, 2005; and primary documents.
2