Federal Appeals Court Upholds Corey H. Decisions

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the rulings of Judge Gettleman in the Corey H. case. On May 13, 2002, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in Reid L. case, denying the motions to intervene and the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Reid L. parties, downstate students with disabilities and downstate teachers of such students, sought to intervene in the Corey H. case and sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit ISBE from implementing the transition rules for a cross-categorical system of special education certification. Judge Gettleman had denied both of these motions.

The Seventh Circuit noted that Judge Gettleman's decision of February 19, 1998, specifically singled out that the categorical certification system for special education teachers was a contributing factor to the violation of the LRE mandate in IDEA.

In affirming the denial of the motions to intervene, the court of appeals found that Judge Gettleman's rulings were justified given that the prospective intervenors filed their motions too late, the prejudice that the existing parties to the case would suffer if the Reid L. parties were allowed to intervene now, and the questionable nature of the legal injury the prospective intervenors would suffer.

The court noted that the case was close to completion, after a decade of litigation of the federal courts. “If the Reid L. parties were allowed to enter now, every one would be forced to return to Square One, with the same old certification rules in place, the same old problems under the IDEA, and no remedy in sight.”

The court of appeals dismissed the argument that ISBE was trying to defend the new rules that it had authored and allowed to take effect over the express opposition of the JCAR and the Illinois General Assembly. The Seventh Circuit concluded that this issue was a “red herring” and stated: “[T]he district court properly found that the state authorities did not have the power to override an injunctive decree issued by a federal court to remedy a state’s violation of standards established by federal law. Were it otherwise, we would risk a return to the unlamented period when states asserted the right to interpose their laws against unpopular civil rights decrees [citation omitted], a period that has long been out to rest throughout the country.”

The court emphasized that everyone must now comply with the rules the ISBE itself drafted, under the spur of the new liability finding, until such time as a new opportunity for public input on revised rules arises or until the court chooses to terminate the decree.”

The Seventh Circuit confessed to serious doubts about the standing of the Reid L. teachers. The court explained that it was hard to see what legally protected interest of such teachers had been invaded and how the invasion had injured them. No teacher would be “decertified” because of the new certification system and standards or the transition rules; teachers would be able to qualify for the new LBS I certificate over a three-year period through their ordinary continuing education process; and in the meantime, teachers could not be forced to teach in areas for which they are unprepared.

The court continued: “We would have just as little sympathy if an attorney complained that her law license was impaired because the state bar toughened its continuing legal education or bar membership requirements. [Citation omitted.] One has no legally protectible interest in taking easy classes rather than hard ones.” The Seventh Circuit concluded that the downstate teachers appeared to lack standing to participate in the present case. As for the Reid L. students, once the Corey H. plaintiffs obtained relief that redressed the statutory violation, any injury that they may have suffered has already been redressed.

In summary, the federal courts have made it clear that State law and procedures are not controlling in this situation.