U.S. Code » Title 20 » Chapter CHAPTER 33— EDUCATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

20 U.S.C. § 1407

State administration

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) RulemakingEach State that receives funds under this chapter shall—(1) ensure that any State rules, regulations, and policies relating to this chapter conform to the purposes of this chapter;(2) identify in writing to local educational agencies located in the State and the Secretary any such rule, regulation, or policy as a State-imposed requirement that is not required by this chapter and Federal regulations; and(3) minimize the number of rules, regulations, and policies to which the local educational agencies and schools located in the State are subject under this chapter.(b) Support and facilitation

State rules, regulations, and policies under this chapter shall support and facilitate local educational agency and school-level system improvement designed to enable children with disabilities to meet the challenging State student academic achievement standards.

(Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 608, as added Pub. L. 108–446, title I, § 101, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2661.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 1407, Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 608, as added Pub. L. 98–199, § 6, Dec. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 1359; amended Pub. L. 100–630, title I, § 101(d), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3290; Pub. L. 101–476, title IX, § 901(b)(24), Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat. 1143; Pub. L. 102–119, § 25(b), Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 607, related to regulation requirements, prior to the general amendment of subchapters I to IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 105–17.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Michael P. v. Dep't of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael P. v. Dep't of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1407 (a), 1412(a)(11). Hawaii DOE *1068 failed to fulfill this obligation by continuing to operate under regulations that required use of the "severe discrepancy model" and did not permit use of the "response to intervention model.”
L.Y. ex rel. J.Y. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 384 F. App'x 58 (3d Cir. 2010). “The school district where the child resides, however, bears fiscal responsibility for a child’s special education services when the IEP requires placement at a private school.”
Chester Upland Sch. Dist. v. Commonwealth, 861 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2012). “20 U.S.C. § 1407 . L.Y. ex rel. J.Y. v. Bayonne Bd.”
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 72 F. Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “2d 1 (1993), the Supreme Court held that providing the services of an interpreter to a deaf student attending a Catholic high school pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1407 et seq., and its Arizona counterpart did not violate the…”
Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. T. ex rel. R., 405 F. Supp. 2d 230 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). “20 U.S.C. § 1407 (a)(2) (state shall notify local educational agencies of any “rule, regulation, or policy as a state-imposed requirement that is not required by” IDEA).”
Joshua B. v. New Trier Twp. High Sch. Dist. 203, 770 F. Supp. 431 (N.D. Ill. 1991). “20 U.S.C. § 1407 . To defeat the motion to dismiss as to the EHA counts, plaintiffs must demonstrate that there are EHA violations that have occurred “in whole or in part” after the date of enactment.”
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 54 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “The student had previously attended public school where he was furnished such an interpreter. Relying heavily on Mueller, Witters and footnote 38 of the Nyquist opinion, the Court found that the effect of the government program was not to promote religion.”
Murray ex rel. Murray v. Montrose Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1J, 51 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 1995). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1407 (b). The Murrays cite various statements made in connection with the proposed amendments, as well as the fact of section 1407(b)’s enactment, to support their argument that the LRE concept includes a strong presumption in favor of neighborhood *930 schools.”
Michael C. ex rel. Stephen C. v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 202 F.3d 642 (3d Cir. 2000). “Citing to 20 U.S.C. § 1407 (0, plaintiffs argue that the 1997 IDEA amendments make clear that OSEP’s policy statements are not entitled to the force of law.”
R. v. Connecticut State Bd. of Educ., No. 3:16-cv-01197 (D. Conn. June 10, 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 1412 (11) (the state educational agency is responsible for ensuring that the IDEA’s requirements are met); and 20 U.S.C. § 1407 (each state receiving federal funds must ensure that its laws and policies comply with the IDEA’s requirements).”
M.D. v. Reykdal, No. 2:22-cv-01621 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2024). · cites it 3× “The parties proposed that “the Court enter a 2 Final Order on the Merits, consistent with Plaintiffs’ Requests for Relief (a)-(c) of their Amended 3 Complaint” and include the following findings and declaratory relief: 4 (a) Find and declare that OSPI’s refusal to ensure the…”
Cruz v. Banks, 283 N.E.3d 831 (N.Y. 2026). “The IDEA authorizes participating states to issue regulations consistent with its goals, giving states a central role in its administration ( see generally 20 USC § 1407 ; see also 20 USC § 1412 ).”
Show all 22 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.