The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D shut down all the schools during the WuHan Flu. Public schools provided remote learning opportunities. Ps sued D for an alleged failure of D to provide a public education to their disabled children as required under IDEA mainly because P’s children were unable to learn remotely. D claimed that all it was required to do was to make sure students with disabilities had access to the same learning opportunities as other students. D also claimed that students with disabilities had access to small in-person group instruction. The Federal Department of Education issued guidance. Initially, if Schools do not provide any educational services to the general student population during the school closure, then they would not be required to provide services to students with disabilities during the school closure. New federal guidance was issued and emphasized that 'schools should not opt to close or decline to provide distance instruction, at the expense of the students, to address matters pertaining to services for students with disabilities' and stated that 'to be clear: ensuring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990 (IDEA), Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) should not prevent any school from offering educational programs through distance instruction. If the School provides educational opportunities during the closure, it must also ensure that disabled students have equal access to the greatest extent possible.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.