When Congress will not act and will not pass legislation with specific and enforceable language, all decisions are open to interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, that Court is, at best, a 5-4 split on key issues, the swing vote viewed to be Kennedy. A recent decision concerning the Environmental Protection Agency continues to reflect that split.

The poor health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, combined with the political philosophy of John Roberts, is cause for increasing worry regarding the rights of children and families. Chief Justice Roberts strongly objects to a larger view of “standing” than the majority of the Court. His most recent dissenting opinion in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency referred to a 1992 case where the dissenting opinion said, “we are well on our way to permitting citizens at large to litigate any decisions of the government which fall in an area of interest to them and with which they disagree.” * Standing…

Means that a party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy
To obtain judicial resolution of that controversy…The requirement of standing”
Is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1983).

Disabled children have a protectible and tangible interest in preserving the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. What do they do? Congress does not pass enforceable legislation and the Supreme Court seeks to limit access to both representation and to the Courts. Who can be sued? Will the special education community rally around the enforcement of IDEA? What will happen as we watch and wait for future special education law?


*For the Chief Justice, a Dissent and a Line in the Sand, Greenhouse, L., The New York Times, April 8, 2007