COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 9 th Circuit in E.T. v. San Diego Unified School Dist. The brief urges the court to reverse the decision of the United States District Court in a case involving the issue of a Settlement Agreement and whether parents have a right to seek a new IEP and school placement for student., E.T. The amicus brief is here.

COPAA asserts that IDEA’s procedural safeguards are not technicalities. The Supreme Court has placed “every bit as much emphasis” on compliance with them as on the substantive adequacy of the IEP itself. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 205
(1982).

COPAA Amicus Committee Co-chairs Ellen M. Saideman and Alexis Casillas and COPAA Legal Director Selene Almazan wrote the brief. COPAA member, Megan Nunez represents the family.

The decision below cannot be reconciled with reconciled with the 9 th Circuit’s Court’s decision in L.B. ex rel. Morrisey v. San Diego Unified School District, 168 F.4th 1150 (9th Cir. 2026)—a case arising from the same District and decided after the ruling
below. L.B. holds that parents’ participation in IEP meetings creates a “continuous obligation” on the district to offer a FAPE, and it squarely rejects the distinction the district court drew between an IEP “meeting” and an IEP “document.” Each time E.T.’s parents came to the table, San Diego had an independent statutory duty to review E.T.’s then-current needs and to revise and offer an IEP reasonably calculated to meet them. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A). The requirement that school districts develop, and review IDEA eligible students’ IEPs extends even to situations where there are unresolved disagreements regarding the program offerings. The Settlement Agreement did not extinguish that duty.