546US1
Unit: $$U7
[09-04-08 12:12:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN
OCTOBER TERM, 2005
49
Syllabus
SCHAFFER, a minor, by his parents and next friends,
SCHAFFER et vir, et al. v. WEAST, SUPERIN-
TENDENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 04–698. Argued October 5, 2005—Decided November 14, 2005 To ensure disabled children a “free appropriate public education,” 20 U. S. C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. V), the Individuals with Disabili ties Education Act (IDEA or Act) requires school districts to create an “individualized education program” (IEP) for each disabled child, § 1414(d), and authorizes parents challenging their child’s IEP to request an “impartial due process hearing,” § 1415(f), but does not specify which party bears the burden of persuasion at that hearing. After an IDEA hearing initiated by petitioners, the Administrative Law Judge held that they bore the burden of persuasion and ruled in favor of respondents. The District Court reversed, concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district. The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court, concluding that petitioners had offered no persuasive reason to depart from the normal rule of allocating the burden to the party seeking relief. Held: The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challeng ing an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether that is the disabled child or the school district. Pp. 56–62. (a) Because IDEA is silent on the allocation of the burden of persua sion, this Court begins with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the burden regarding the essential aspects of their claims. Although the ordinary rule admits of exceptions, decisions that place the entire burden of persuasion on the opposing party at the outset of a proceed ing—as petitioners urge the Court to do here—are extremely rare. Absent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, the Court will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief. Pp. 56–58. (b) Petitioners’ arguments for departing from the ordinary default rule are rejected. Petitioners’ assertion that putting the burden of per suasion on school districts will help ensure that children receive a free appropriate public education is unavailing. Assigning the burden to schools might encourage them to put more resources into preparing IEPs and presenting their evidence, but IDEA is silent about whether
