Chapter 1: | Introduction |
Disability advocacy groups were calling the White House up to the last moment before the bill’s signature, to encourage the president to sign the bill.
Given this brief historical account, it is fair to conclude that federal special education policy developed out of a political, multi-institutional context in which the courts, interest groups, and Congress all played a role. Special education policy continues to operate in such an environment. For example, in two instances, Congress has responded to Supreme Court rulings on cases stemming from the act, and enacted legislation that was in direct opposition to the ruling of the Court. In the first such case, Smith v. Robinson, the Court ruled that plaintiffs who prevail in disputes stemming from the act cannot collect attorneys’ fees.12 This decision was based on the “American rule” which holds that courts will not award attorneys’ fees unless the Congress has specifically authorized them to do so. There was no mention of attorneys’ fees in the act in 1975. This ruling received much attention in Congress. For example, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) was quoted as saying that the ruling would have “a devastating effect on the ability of parents to secure free appropriate public education for disabled children.”13 That same year, both the Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills that would allow courts to award attorneys’ fees to parents of children with disabilities, if they were the prevailing party. Opponents of these bills—groups representing school officials (e.g., National School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators)—claimed that attorneys’ fee awards would encourage litigation and place an unreasonable burden on school district resources. Proponents of the bills, on the other hand, argued that the ability of parents to litigate would enforce compliance with the law and ensure that school districts were doing their job in educating children with disabilities. Negotiations took place among the