A New York class action lawsuit regarding the right of students with disabilities to receive special education services until their 22^nd birthday can proceed thanks to a December 2025 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision in J.M. v. New York City Department of Education is available here.

The Second Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had dismissed the class action lawsuit brought by parents of students with disabilities against the New York City Department of Education and the Board of Education of the City School District of The City of New York (“DOE”) for violating the IDEA with a policy that terminates students’ special education services before they turn 22.

Because the state of New York provides adult education programming to nondisabled students who are 21 and older, the IDEA requires the state to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to students with disabilities until their 22^nd birthday. On the DOE’s motion, the New York district court had dismissed the lawsuit, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff families had not exhausted administrative remedies by first filing to request an administrative due process hearing(s).

In reversing the district court’s decision, the Second Circuit noted that “exhaustion is not an absolute requirement” and ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims met the policy-or-practice exception to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement: “Plaintiffs have pointed to a specific policy and practice they contend is contrary to law…. And the purposes of exhaustion would not be served” because their claims focused on a question of law “untethered from the individual circumstances of any individual student,” and the legal questions “do not require the ‘exercise of discretion and educational expertise by state and local agencies.’” The court also noted that the IDEA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement “is a claim-processing rule and not a limit on the court’s jurisdiction.” The Second Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.