Abstract
The provision of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) is required for all individuals receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Given the continuous legal developments on parental rights and the provision of FAPE to qualified students with disabilities, there is a need to review recent developments, particularly about the growing population of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Herein, we discuss illustrative recent case law findings from 2025 and implications for educators and parents of students with ASD. Based on these findings, we offer implications for practice and resources for educators and families.
Introduction
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). In 2021, 6,524,630 students ages 6 through 21 qualified for services under IDEA, representing 9.6% of the school-age population. FAPE means special education and related services are provided at public expense, meet state educational agency standards, and are provided in conformity with each student’s individualized education program (IEP; §1401[9]). Further, the Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) established a two-step standard in determining FAPE procedural compliance and the provision of educational benefits. The Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) case provided further guidance by rejecting the “De Minimis” standard (bare minimum) and establishing the meaningful progress standard, requiring that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) be developed to enable students to make progress in light of their circumstances. The Court also underscored the importance of “ambitious goals” by setting challenging academic and functional goals for all students with disabilities, including those with significant challenges.
Special education is defined as “specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability” (§1401[29]). Related services “means transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services . . . as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education . . .” (§1401[26]). Additionally, school districts are required to provide special education and related services based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable and consider special factors (e.g., use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, needs of students with limited English proficiency, visual and hearing impairments, as well as assistive technology devices and services) (§1414[3]).
Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities
Ensuring the provision of FAPE, however, has been both challenging and controversial. In 2004, Congress emphasized the need for “strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home” (§1400[c][5][B]). First, parents are key participants in both eligibility (multidisciplinary) and placement (IEP) teams. Second, parents must provide consent for both an evaluation when a disability is suspected and for placement in special education if the child is found eligible under IDEA. Third, parents enjoy numerous safeguards and are empowered to challenge school districts when any aspect of the child’s right to a FAPE (e.g., evaluation, placement) is not met. Specifically, they have the right to an independent evaluation, prior written notice, access to records, due process rights, appeals to the federal court system, and recovery of legal fees if they are the prevailing party (1415[d][2]). Indeed, regarding hearings and civil actions, parents are entitled to “remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) available for such a violation to the same extent as those remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public entity other than a State” (§1403[b]).
In addition to IDEA provisions that empower parents to advocate for their children’s rights, courts have clarified and underscored the importance of parental participation and advocacy (see Conroy et al., 2010). For example, at the Supreme Court level, parents are entitled to (a) related services for their child that are a supportive service and not a medical service that must be provided by a physician (Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 1984); (b) reimbursement for the cost of unilateral private school placement when the public school fails to provide a FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate (Burlington v. Department of Education, 1985) even when the private placement is not state approved (Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 1993) or the child did not previously receive special education and related services (Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 2009); and (c) pursue their own claims in federal court without an attorney (pro se representation) under IDEA (Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 2007, p. 533; see also Conroy et al., 2010). Further, underscoring the importance of parental participation in IEP meetings, the Ninth Circuit in Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Board of Education (2013) ruled that (a) failure to adhere to procedural matters, such as meeting strict review timelines, is secondary to parental participation in IEP development; (b) failure to meet timelines does not render the IEP invalid; (c) scheduling meetings and managing conflicts are secondary to parental participation; and (d) holding a follow-up IEP meeting to address parental absence in the IEP is not sufficient.
Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Given the continuous legal developments on parental rights and the provision of FAPE to qualified students with disabilities, there is a need to review recent developments, particularly regarding the growing population of students on the autism spectrum. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a pervasive developmental disability that is often associated with a wide array of health and educational needs (Bitterman et al., 2008). According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 1 in 31 (3.2%) children 4–8 years of age have been identified with ASD, which occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups and identification/diagnosis is three times more common among boys than girls (Shaw et al., 2025). Under IDEA, the number of students under the category of ASD accounted for 12.2% of all students with disabilities and has been steadily rising (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). Studies estimate the total cost of supporting students with ASD, primarily through public funding, is significantly higher than that of other disabilities (Barrett et al., 2014).
Students with ASD may often have complex needs that warrant the provision of special education services under IDEA. In addition, related services are often needed to support these needs. Services needed for students with ASD may include applied behavior analysis therapy, counseling, dietitian and nutrition services, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational therapy, school health, speech-language therapy, and transportation (Suhrheinrich et al., 2021). However, it is important to note that the type(s), frequency, duration, and location of services are determined on an individualized basis by the student’s IEP team (Yell et al., 2016).
While parents serve as members of the IEP team, they often report dissatisfaction with services related to the treatment of their children with ASD (Stanford et al., 2020). Parents in this disability category tend to be better informed of ASD-related resources, evidence-based practices, and legal rights. As a result, families and schools find themselves at odds concerning the provision of FAPE, often resulting in administrative due process hearings and court proceedings (see Special Ed Connection, 2025; Yell et al., 2003). Specifically, in 2025, a search through Special Ed Connection regarding ASD and related services identified 77 court cases. This case law addressed a variety of FAPE-related issues, including progress on IEP goals, appropriateness of placement (LRE), related services, extended school year services, procedural matters (e.g., exhaustion of administrative due process hearings), and discrimination under Section 504. Herein, we highlight a complex court case involving both procedural and substantive issues and reference additional cases (see Table 1) to capture the variety of issues addressed in the courts in 2025. These rulings provide important lessons for educators in their efforts to improve practice and ensure FAPE for students with ASD.
2025 Autism-Related Educational Case Law.
2025 Case Law for Students on the Autism Spectrum
J.T. v. District of Columbia Public Schools
The case involves the most recent developments in a long-standing dispute between the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and V.T., a student with ASD and sensory processing issues (i.e., a “sensory seeker for visual stimuli and an extreme sensory avoider for sounds”). V.T. has been eligible for special education services for several years and began receiving virtual instruction starting in June 2020 and continuing through the 2020–2021 school year. V.T.’s IEP provided for: (a) 24 hr/week of specialized instruction; (b) 360 min/month of speech-language pathology; (c) 360 min/month of occupational therapy; and (d) 240 min/month of behavioral support services, along with a dedicated aide for six hr/day and specialized instruction in a highly structured small-group setting. In the 2020–2021 school year, V.T. made progress by mastering several academic goals (in math and written expression) and three motor skills/physical development goals, along with other goals. The student participated in at least 80% of his classes independently.
In May 2021, DCPS scheduled a meeting to review and revise V.T.’s IEP for the 2021–2022 school year, but failed to secure parental participation. V.T. filed a due process hearing to compel parental participation and moved to schedule a meeting on November 3, 2021, upon securing the hearing officer’s order. Parents requested alternative meeting dates, pointing to a conflict. District of Columbia Public Schools, however, proceeded with the meeting as scheduled and developed a new IEP without V.T.’s parents. At this meeting, the district decreased V.T.’s occupational therapy hours and removed him from full-time special education.
Additionally, the IEP team debated in-person learning for V.T. despite his documented – and DCPS-approved – need for remote instruction. During this time, V.T. had started the year on a virtual placement, which was problematic from the outset. For example, V.T. was not able to log in to the Communication and Education Support classroom; he could only view the teacher and the blackboard, no visual aids or instructions, and he experienced challenges communicating with his aide because the aide did not have a computer to be online with V.T. or the class. Parents attempted to work with the teacher and other staff to address these challenges; however, these efforts were unsuccessful.
Issue
After the 2021–2022 school year, V.T.’s parents removed him from DCPS and enrolled him in a private school, where he was successful. Consequently, parents brought forward action alleging that the November 2021 IEP was improper because it was developed without parental participation; allowed limited hours of specialized instruction and occupational therapy; did not address extended school year or transportation accommodations; placed V.T. in a classroom that was too large; and failed to address calming strategies and equipment. To address these concerns, parents sought relief in the form of appropriate compensatory education for V.T. through an IEP meeting staffed by qualified personnel, including an independent educational evaluation to determine the compensatory education services.
Judgment and Reasoning
The Judge concluded that DCPS failed to provide a virtual-placement IEP necessary for V.T. to receive FAPE. Specifically, the Judge pointed out that the case facts disputed DCPS’ s assertion that V.T. performed “better than expected” as V.T. did not master any academic goals and made progress on fewer than half of them. Further, DCPS’s proposal of “an in-person placement” was contrary to the previously agreed-upon service delivery and the physician’s order. Also, the November 2021 IEP meeting, without the participation of V.T.’s parents, resulted in the denial of a FAPE. Finally, the Hearing Officer, on remand, should address J.T.’s claims for compensatory education and that DCPS failed to properly implement V.T.’s IEP during the 2021–2022 school year due to specialized instruction in light of the “many problems” with V.T.’s virtual placement identified by the Hearing Officer.
Additional Cases
J.T. v. District of Columbia Public Schools (2025) addressed several issues related to the provision of services to meet the expectation of FAPE. Additional special education legal cases are detailed in Table 1, along with their implications for implementation. Two cases addressed the issue of LRE, both siding with the district as school personnel had appropriately identified LREs based on student needs and services (J. M. v. Genesee Intermediate School District and Flushing Community Schools, 125 LRP 29479, 2025; M.S. v. Beaumont Independent School District, 125 LRP 34827, 2025). Likewise, A.A. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (2025) was decided in favor of the school district, as a judge upheld that the repetition of goals was not a denial of a FAPE, given that the student had failed to make progress and the objectives were modified. In contrast, D.M.S. v. Upper Darby School District (2025) resulted in a decision in favor of the family, noting that limiting access to educational records violates procedural safeguards. Likewise, North East Independent School District v. I.M. (2025) resulted in a decision in favor of the family, noting that the lack of extended school-year services led to regression in behavior and a denial of a FAPE that outweighed the observed academic progress.
Implications for Practice
The highlighted cases illustrate the complexity of providing services for students with ASD with extensive needs. These complexities illustrate the importance of making decisions based on the collective knowledge and insight of all IEP team members and the need for FAPE to be reflected in “progress in light of the child’s circumstances,” rather than on factors such as convenience or preference. The following conclusions can be drawn from this recent case law.
First, as a result of the Endrew ruling, there is heightened awareness and expectation that qualified students under IDEA are entitled to progress in light of their specific circumstances, based on reasonably ambitious goals. This requirement accentuates the need for improved educational outcomes, increased attention to addressing individualized needs, implementation of evidence-based instructional and behavioral interventions, ongoing progress monitoring, and a close working relationship with parents. Therefore, it is important that IEPs are developed by addressing procedural (Yell et al., 2013; including planning documents to track procedural timelines and facilitate student and family input), substantive (Yell et al., 2016; including a planning document to guide IEP goal development), and placement issues (Yell et al., 2020; including questions to guide placement decisions). See Table 2 for educator resources related to the accurate development and implementation of IEPs.
Resources for Educators.
Second, it is imperative that school districts collect assessment data to identify the unique needs of children with disabilities and, through the IEP process, address those needs in goals and special education and related services. In addition, monitoring the adequacy of these services in determining progress (and adjusting services as needed based on performance) is necessary to ensure FAPE. For example, as indicated in A.A. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (2025) , maintaining the same goals over multiple years may be appropriate given a critical skill deficit; however, a lack of progress must prompt intervention adjustments (e.g., duration and frequency of service). To address the issues of lack of progress, teachers can ensure they accurately measure present levels of performance and select sufficiently ambitious goals, identify appropriate data collection methods to monitor IEP goals that are sensitive to change, and modify services as needed if sufficient progress is not evident through quarterly progress reporting.
Third, according to IDEA, the presumption is that students with disabilities will be educated with same-age peers unless individualized needs necessitate service delivery in more restrictive settings. Schools, therefore, must ensure that placement decisions are based on individualized needs, allow for progress, and avoid predetermination and administrative convenience placements. To meet the LRE requirement, Yell et al. (2020) provide a comprehensive guide in making legally sound placement decisions. Educators should ask key questions when engaging in this process, such as, “Can FAPE be delivered in the general education setting? Can the general education classroom be made appropriate with supplementary aides and services?” (Yell et al., 2020, p. 301). Only if the answer to both of these questions is no should a more restrictive setting be considered.
Fourth, according to the definition of related services, only those services deemed necessary to benefit the child from special education are the school district’s responsibility for meeting FAPE requirements under IDEA. For example, a student might benefit from Occupational Therapy services beyond those necessary for educational purposes, but those would not be required related services at public expense. Nonetheless, services deemed necessary must be provided in accordance with the IEP, with duration and frequency that allow for a student to benefit from special education. The list of related services as defined in IDEA is not exhaustive; IDEA allows for any developmental (e.g., self-regulation supports such as applied behavior analysis), corrective (e.g., adaptive physical education), or supportive service (paraprofessional support, assistive technology) deemed necessary by the IEP team. Once students are deemed eligible for special education, any related services necessary for educational success can be included. Educators should carefully consider which services are necessary for the provision of FAPE and ensure these are incorporated into the IEP to facilitate each student’s success.
Fifth, parental participation is legislatively mandated, and every effort must be made to allow for parent involvement. As clearly articulated in J.T. v. District of Columbia Public Schools (2025) and IDEA regulations, parents’ participation in IEP meetings is of critical importance. Scheduling concerns and timelines are secondary to parents’ presence (Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Board of Education, 2013; see also Yell et al., 2015). See Table 3 for resources that may help families better understand the provisions of IDEA and related services. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations clearly define what should be incorporated into a prior written notice provided in language understandable to the general public, including a description of and explanation for the proposed action, a statement of procedural safeguards, sources for assistance in understanding the action (typically the special education teacher), a description of other options considered, and a description of relevant factors guiding the action (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300, 2006).
Resources for Parents.
Therefore, in addition to involving parents to the maximum extent possible, schools must work closely with professional organizations (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children, National Association of School Psychologists) to identify, understand, and implement evidence-based practices, psychometrically sound assessments, and data-driven processes for special education and related services. Likewise, educators should engage in ongoing professional development to maintain current knowledge of effective practices.
Conclusion
The provision of FAPE is every special educator’s goal. However, differing opinions on how this is defined, as well as procedural and substantive errors in IEP development and implementation, can result in litigious situations. This summary of 2025 case law is intended to share policy updates that every educator should consider when supporting students with disabilities, particularly those with ASD. Recommendations based on recent case law include improving educational outcomes, increasing attention to individualized needs, implementing evidence-based instructional and behavioral interventions, engaging in ongoing progress monitoring, and developing a close working relationship with parents and professional organizations.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.