Hawaii attorney general breaks with states supporting parents in civil rights case

The Supreme Court will soon decide in Schaffer v. Weast whether parents or school districts have the burden of proof in IDEA ( Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ) due process hearing.

Hawaii's attorney general has broken with that state's parents and plans to file an amicus brief supporting the school system, arguing that the party bringing an administrative due process claim ( usually the parents ) bears the burden of proof in such actions. This would disadvantage parents who often already have problems finding legal representation for IDEA cases, which are typically quite complex and difficult.

At present, thirteen or more disability organizations have filed an amicus brief in this case supporting the parents' position that the school district should have the burden of proof. Additionally, a number of states also signed on to a Virginia amicus brief that supported the parents? position: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Washington, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nevada.

Opposed to these organizations and states and opposed to the children is: Hawaii. The National Protection and Advocacy agency reported that the Hawaii AG was about to be circulating his amicus brief among other state attorneys general to seek their support.

Parents question the Hawaii state government's motives in seeking to intervene in this case.

In the past, when Hawaii's AG has gone to the Supreme Court, it has been to oppose the rights of people with disabilities, and so it is with this action. Clearly, the state will benefit if Hawaii's position is vindicated, which means the children will lose.

In Burns-Vidlak vs. Chandler, settled in March 2003 for $7 million, the state tried to disallow blind and deaf people from coverage in the state Quest Medicaid waiver program. Hawaii settled only after the US Supreme Court refused to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in January of that year.

Before that, Hawaii led seven state attorneys general in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in University of Alabama v. Garrett, a 1999 case challenging the constitutionality of the ADA. Had this succeeded, conceivably it could have relieved Hawaii of its obligations to Felix children under the consent decree.

If it's a disability case and Hawaii is at the Supreme Court, parents believe it will again be to reduce benefits to people with disabilities.