In March of 2023, the Supreme Court clarified the exhaustion requirement set out in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), holding that plaintiffs do not need to exhaust administrative procedures if the type of relief that they are seeking is unavailable under the IDEA. In doing so, the Court left unanswered the question of whether the exhaustion requirement is susceptible to the futility exception—an exception that is currently recognized by eleven courts of appeals. This Comment provides an overview of the IDEA and its exhaustion requirement, including an analysis of exceptions to the requirement. I address the inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of these exceptions and the effect of the Court’s restraint in deciding the issue. I argue that the futility exception fits in line with Congressional intentions and heeds judicial precedent. The Court’s discretion furthers confusion in lower courts and impedes students’ paths to relief. Finally, I analyze whether the Court’s decision in Luna Perez could be utilized to expand the scope of exceptions to exhaustion, specifically exceptions for systemic violations.
J.D. Candidate, Class of 2024, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; B.A. 2019 Duke University. Prior to law school I worked at the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. While there, I worked with John (name changed for confidentiality) and his parents, who opened my eyes to the struggles parents face getting their children a free appropriate public education. John’s parents had already requested specific accommodations at his IEP meetings and, despite receiving evaluations from experts in the field, knew that they would need to proceed with a due process hearing if John were ever to receive the accommodations they felt he needed. For John, and the many families like his, I wanted to investigate the IDEA and the ways in which students can seek relief. I want to thank Professor Jasmine Harris, Professor Jean Galbraith, and Ellen Saideman for their guidance as well as the editors of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review for their diligence throughout the editing process. Finally, I want to thank my family and friends for their continuing support.