Safeguarding procedures under the IDEA: Restoring the balance in the adjudication of FAPE

In the landmark case Board of Education v. Rowley in 1982, the Supreme Court concluded that FAPE has two prongs—procedural compliance and a less specific substantive standard. In the succeeding decades, the courts have gradually eroded the procedural dimension to the point of near distinction by giving preemptive effect to the substantive dimension. The article’s purpose is to stimulate IDEA adjudicators, starting with the specialized and significant level of impartial hearing officers, and to restore the enforceable meaning of the procedural requirements of the IDEA. The author purports that doing so will provide a more coherent balance with not only the substantive dimension, but also the other decisional dispute resolution mechanisms of the Act. Part I provides an overview of the procedural structure of the IDEA and the Supreme Court’s framework interpretation. Part II traces the subsequent interpretation of the procedural dimension of FAPE, culminating in the codification of the two-part test in the latest IDEA amendments. Part III proposes an adjudicative approach for enforcing the procedural dimension of FAPE.