Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Vir, No. 05–18.

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
• Citation: 74 USLW 4479,165 L.Ed.2d 526,126 S.Ct. 2455,548 U.S. 291
• Parties: ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, v. Pearl MURPHY et vir.
• Docket Number: No. 05–18.
• Decision Date: 26 June 2006

548 U.S. 291
126 S.Ct. 2455
165 L.Ed.2d 526
74 USLW 4479

ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner,
v.
Pearl MURPHY et vir.

No. 05–18.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 19, 2006.
Decided June 26, 2006.

Syllabus^*

After respondents prevailed in their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action to require petitioner school board to pay for their son's private school tuition, they sought fees for services rendered by an educational consultant during the proceedings, relying on an IDEA provision that permits a court to “award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs” to prevailing parents, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). The District Court granted their motion in part. Affirming, the Second Circuit noted that, under Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385, and West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68, a cost- or fee-shifting provision will not be read to permit recovery of expert fees without explicit statutory authority, but concluded that a congressional Conference Committee Report relating to § 1415(i)(3)(B) and a footnote in Casey referencing that Report showed that the IDEA authorized such reimbursement.

Held:Section 1415(i)(3)(B) does not authorize prevailing parents to recover expert fees. Pp. 2458 – 2464.

(a) The resolution of this question is guided by the fact that Congress enacted the IDEA pursuant to the Spending Clause. While Congress has broad power to set the terms on which it disburses federal money to the States, any conditions it attaches to a State's acceptance of such funds must be set out “unambiguously.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694. Fund recipients are bound only by those conditions that they accept “voluntarily and knowingly,” ibid., and States cannot knowingly accept conditions of which they are “unaware” or which they are “unable to ascertain,” ibid. Thus, the question here is whether the IDEA furnishes clear notice regarding expert fees. Pp. 2458 – 2459.

(b) The Court begins with the IDEA's text, for if its “language is plain,” the courts' function “ ‘ “is to enforce it according to its terms.” ’ ” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1. While § 1415(i)(3)(B) provides for an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees,” it does not even hint that acceptance of IDEA funds makes a State responsible for reimbursing prevailing parents for the services of experts. “Costs” is a term of art that does not generally

[548 U.S. 292]

include expert fees. The use of “costs” rather than “expenses” strongly suggests that § 1415(i)(3)(B) was not meant to be an open-ended provision making States liable for all expenses. Moreover, § 1415(i)(3)(B) says not that a court may award “costs” but that it may award attorney's fees “as part of the costs.” This language simply adds reasonable attorney's fees to the list of recoverable costs set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the general statute covering taxation of costs, which is strictly limited by § 1821. Thus, § 1415(i)(3)(B)'s text does not authorize an award of additional expert fees, and it certainly fails to present the clear notice required by the Spending Clause. Other IDEA provisions point strongly in the same direction. Of little significance here is a provision in the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 requiring the General Accounting Office to collect data on awards to prevailing parties in IDEA cases, but making no mention of consultants or experts or their fees. And the fact that the provision directed the GAO to compile data on the hours spent by consultants in IDEA cases does not mean that Congress intended that States compensate prevailing parties for fees billed by these consultants. Pp. 2459 – 2461.

(c) Crawford Fitting Co. and Casey strongly reinforce the conclusion that the IDEA does not unambiguously authorize prevailing parents to recover expert fees. Crawford Fitting Co.'s reasoning supports the conclusion that the term “costs” in § 1415(i)(3)(B), like “costs” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the provision at issue there, is defined by the categories of expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This conclusion is buttressed by the principle, recognized in Crawford Fitting Co., that no statute will be construed to authorize taxing witness fees as costs unless the statute “refer[s] explicitly to witness fees.” 482 U.S., at 445, 107 S.Ct. 2494. The conclusion that the IDEA does not authorize expert fee awards is confirmed even more dramatically by Casey, where the Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a fee-shifting provision with wording virtually identical to that of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), did not empower a district court to award expert fees to a prevailing party. 499 U.S., at 102, 111 S.Ct. 1138. The Second Circuit misunderstood the meaning of the Casey footnote on which it relied. That footnote did not state that the Conference Committee Report set out the correct interpretation of § 1415(i)(3)(B) or provided the clear notice required under the Spending Clause. Its thrust was simply that “attorneys' fees,” standing alone, is generally not understood as encompassing expert fees. Pp. 2461 – 2463.

(d) Respondents' additional arguments are unpersuasive. The IDEA's goals of “ensur[ing] that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education,” § 1400(d)(1)(A), and of safeguarding parents' right to challenge adverse school decisions are too general to provide much support for their reading of the IDEA. And

[548 U.S. 293]

the IDEA's legislative history is insufficient help, where everything other than that history overwhelmingly suggests that expert fees may not be recovered. Pp. 2463 – 2464.

402 F.3d 332, reversed and remanded.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 2464. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 2466. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SOUTER, JJ., joined, post, p. 2466.

David B. Salmons, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Raymond G. Kuntz, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey J. Schiro, Mario L. Spagnuolo, Jensen Varghese Kuntz, Spagnuolo, Scapoli & Schiro, P.C., Bedford Village, NY, for petitioner.

Peter L. Strauss, New York, New York, Brian Wolfman, Scott L. Nelson, Washington, DC, David C. Vladeck, Counsel of Record, Jillian M. Cutler, Washington, DC, for Respondents Pearl and Theodore Murphy.

Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act) provides that a court “may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs” to parents who prevail in an action brought under the Act. 111 Stat. 92, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). We granted certiorari to decide whether this fee-shifting provision authorizes prevailing parents to

[548 U.S. 294]

recover fees for services rendered by experts in IDEA actions. We hold that it does not.

I

Respondents Pearl and Theodore Murphy filed an action under the IDEA on behalf of their son, Joseph Murphy, seeking to require petitioner Arlington Central School District Board of Education to pay for their son's private school tuition for specified school years. Respondents prevailed in the District Court, 86 F.Supp.2d 354 (S.D.N.Y.2000), and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 297 F.3d 195 (2002).

As prevailing parents, respondents then sought $29,350 in fees for the services of an educational consultant, Marilyn Arons, who assisted respondents throughout the IDEA proceedings. The District Court granted respondents' request in part. It held that only the value of Arons' time spent between the hearing request and the ruling in respondents' favor could properly be considered charges incurred in an “action or proceeding brought” under the Act, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). 2003 WL 21694398, *9 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2003). This reduced the maximum recovery to $8,650. The District Court also held that Arons, a nonlawyer, could be compensated only for time spent on expert consulting services, not for time spent on legal representation, id., at *4, but it concluded that all the relevant time could be characterized as falling within the compensable category, and thus allowed compensation for the full $8,650, id., at *10.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 402 F.3d 332 (2005). Acknowledging that other Circuits had taken the opposite view, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “Congress intended to and did authorize the reimbursement of expert fees in IDEA actions.” Id., at 336. The court began by discussing two decisions of this Court holding that expert fees could not be recovered as taxed costs under particular cost- or fee-shifting provisions.

[548 U.S. 295]

SeeCrawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987) (interpreting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920); West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991) (interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1988 ed.)). According to these decisions, the court noted, a cost- or fee-shifting provision will not be read to permit a prevailing party to recover expert fees without “ ‘explicit statutory authority’ indicating that Congress intended for that sort of fee-shifting.” 402 F.3d, at 336.

Ultimately, though, the court was persuaded by a statement in the Conference Committee Report relating to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) and by a footnote in Casey that made reference to that Report. 402 F.3d, at 336–337 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 99–687, p. 5 (1986), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News,...