In Cruz v. Banks, 134 F.4th 687, 125 LRP 12165 (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2025), certified question accepted, No. 64, 2025 WL 1439661 (N.Y. May 20, 2025), the Second Circuit addressed whether an individualized education program (IEP) offering a 12:1:4 classroom satisfied the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) requirement that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) meet state educational standards, where New York regulations set different class-size limits for students with highly intensive management needs and students with severe multiple disabilities. The court concluded that the issue turned on unresolved questions of state law and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals.
The student had cerebral palsy, a visual impairment, a seizure disorder, scoliosis, and other complex needs, and had attended the private iBrain school beginning in 2018. The parent challenged public school IEPs developed in May 2020 and June 2021. The 2020 IEP recommended a 6:1:1 classroom with extensive related services and placement at a public school rather than iBrain. The 2021 IEP recommended a 12:1:4 classroom with largely similar services. The impartial hearing officer (IHO) found that both IEPs offered FAPE but concluded that the proposed public school could not implement them because the length of the school day was insufficient to deliver all required instruction and services. Although the IHO found iBrain appropriate, it reduced the tuition reimbursement award as excessive.
On administrative review, the state review officer (SRO) reversed the finding that the public school could not implement the IEPs, concluding that services could be provided concurrently. The district court agreed with the SRO. Both rejected the parent’s argument that state regulations required placement in a classroom capped at six students, concluding instead that the school district could rely on a regulation allowing up to twelve students for programs serving students with severe multiple disabilities.
On appeal, the Second Circuit rejected several challenges to the IEPs. It agreed that the proposed public school could implement the services through simultaneous delivery, that the absence of music therapy did not deny FAPE because related goals could be met through other services, that a new evaluation was not required before the change in class size, and that there was no evidentiary support for claims regarding transportation-related medical needs. The remaining dispute concerned the interaction between two New York regulations: one limiting classes to six students for those with highly intensive management needs, and another permitting up to twelve students for those with severe multiple disabilities whose programs emphasize habilitation and treatment.
The court concluded that resolution of whether the 12:1:4 program satisfied state standards required interpretation of state regulatory provisions on which there was no controlling state-court authority. It noted the textual tension between the regulations and questioned whether courts should defer to the state education agency’s interpretation. Because the state-law issue was dispositive of whether the IEP provided FAPE, and implicated broader state policy concerns, the court certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. It rejected arguments that certification would cause undue delay, emphasizing that the case involved reimbursement rather than immediate services, and distinguished certification from abstention.
The certified question asked whether, when a student is covered by more than one class-size regulation under New York law, those provisions impose cumulative requirements or instead offer alternative options from which the school district may choose.