EXHAUSTION

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether settlement with a school satisfies the exhaustion requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) so that a student might bring a claim for monetary damages in a district court. Miguel Luna Perez asserts that IDEA’s exhaustion is satisfied by a settlement with a school, not only by a decision on the merits. Perez further argues that requiring individuals to exhaust their claims in lieu of settlement would be futile. Further, Perez asserts that allowing non-IDEA claims to proceed without IDEA exhaustion would not cause individuals to bypass the administrative IDEA process. Sturgis Public Schools and Sturgis Board of Education (“Sturgis”) counter that settlement is insufficient for exhaustion requirements especially when the individual seeks monetary damages. Sturgis further contends that allowing non-IDEA claims to proceed without IDEA exhaustion might result in parents seeking monetary damages in the courts to the detriment of their child’s free appropriate public education. The outcome of this case has important implications on the substantive rights of children with disabilities in terms of the dispute resolution proceedings between the schools and parents. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case concerns the right to a jury trial under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Specifically, the PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing suit. Kyle Richards argues that, when the facts needed to demonstrate exhaustion are the same facts which support the merits of his claim, the PLRA requires a jury trial to resolve these disputed facts. Richards asserts that allowing a judge to evaluate the facts of the exhaustion claim and dismiss his case would deprive him of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on the merits of the case, since the facts underpinning the merits and exhaustion are the same. Thomas Perttu counters that exhaustion is a threshold requirement which plaintiffs must meet before reaching a jury trial on the merits, and it is thus proper for a judge to evaluate exhaustion and gatekeep PLRA cases from reaching a jury. This case will affect litigation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, define exhaustion’s place as a doctrine of law or equity, and heavily impact the role of the jury in future disputes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2002, Arnold Preston, a lawyer, and Judge Alex Ferrer entered into a contract where Preston agreed to act as Ferrer's personal manager in exchange for a portion of the earnings from a potential television deal. The contract contained a clause which required that any disputes over the validity of the contract be arbitrated. Several years later, Preston filed an action with the American Arbitration Association against Ferrer, seeking earnings which he claims are owed under that contract. Ferrer claims that the entire contract is invalid under the California Talent Agencies Act, and also contends that under that act, the parties must exhaust their administrative remedies by submitting the dispute to the California Labor Commissionerbefore an arbitrator or court can hear the case. The California Court of Appeals agreed with Ferrer. Preston challenges this holding, claiming that that the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), which held that when there is an arbitration agreement disputes over the validity of a contract must first be submitted to an arbitrator, require this dispute to be first submitted to arbitration. Arbitration agreements are found in many contracts, and this decision could have a significant impact on the enforceability of such clauses and on the States' ability to regulate certain industries and agreements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether it is necessary for claimants to exhaust state remedies before bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. Williams, et al. argue that the language of § 1983 and the Supremacy Clause compel states to hear § 1983 claims. Washington counters that state sovereignty allows states to create laws about their own courts’ jurisdiction regardless of whether this denies certain federal claims. This case has serious implications for plaintiffs’ choice of forum when bringing a § 1983 claim and on the allocation of power between state and federal governments.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources