On April 25, 1975, the Children's Defense Fund filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on behalf of "all school age children in the state of Mississippi who are disabled or regarded by their Local Education Agency as disabled" against the Mississippi Department of Education. The Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and counsel from the Children's Defense Fund and the ACLU, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Defendants failed to provide appropriate educational opportunities to handicapped children in Mississippi.

On July 28, 1977, the Court (Judge Orma Rinehart Smith) granted summary judgment for the Plaintiffs, holding that the state had violated the Education of the Handicapped Act (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401, et seq.). This holding led to a consent decree between the parties, which was signed on January 26, 1979, and was aimed at correcting the Defendants' noncompliance with federal and state law regarding the education of handicapped children. This consent decree remained in place for over twenty years, however, due to the Defendants' noncompliance, the litigation was reopened in 2001.

This led to an amended consent decree signed by the parties on December 23, 2003. This agreement, set to expire in 2011, was updated to foster compliance with the newly passed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997. The agreement required the Defendants to hire consultants, to create a system for identifying handicapped children and creating Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in order to create the Least Restrictive Environment for the education of handicapped children. It also required extensive monitoring and reporting, as well as the implementation of non-discriminatory assessment/evaluation procedures.

On July 3, 2012, the Parties, being satisfied with the steps taken by the Defendants, moved for dismissal with prejudice of the 2003 Amended Consent Decree. On December 10, 2012, the court granted the motion to dismiss, ordering the case dismissed with prejudice. The court praised the defendant's efforts, saying they had increased educational outcomes for all students in MS. Because of the positive changes, the court granted the motion to dismiss.

Joshua Arocho - 07/24/2012
Erin Chapman - 02/05/2015


compress summary