Herbert v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., 177 F.4th 630 (5th Cir. June 2, 2026), involved eligibility for special education based on residency and also addressed maintenance of placement, or stay-put, during the pendency of proceedings. The case began on August 7, 2024, when the parent enrolled the student in Cypress Grove School under the St. James Parish School Board. On the enrollment application, the parent stated that she lived in a different Louisiana parish, St. John the Baptist, but that the student, who had a disability, lived in St. James Parish. The parent later submitted an affidavit stating instead that the student lived with her in St. James Parish.
The St. James School Board approved the enrollment. On October 22, Cypress Grove found the student eligible for special education and scheduled an individualized education program (IEP) meeting for November 7. On November 1, a St. James Parish official contacted the parent. She acknowledged that she lived in St. John the Baptist Parish but maintained that the student lived in St. James Parish. On November 4, the board informed her that the student would be disenrolled. The parent filed for due process and requested a stay-put order and an independent educational evaluation (IEE). She alleged a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) based on the disenrollment and the failure to conduct an IEP meeting or provide services after the residency determination.
In response to the hearing request, St. James Parish challenged the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) jurisdiction. The ALJ entered a stay-put order that would remain in effect while the due process proceeding was pending and held a hearing focused on residency. The ALJ ultimately concluded that there was no jurisdiction over the due process complaint and dismissed the proceeding. The parent then sued the school board in federal district court. The district court denied her request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It first concluded that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504. The court also concluded that the district court properly conducted de novo review and rejected the parent’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claim concerning St. James’s failure to respond to her request for an IEE at public expense because of the residency issue.
On residency, the court explained that Louisiana law requires local educational agencies to provide FAPE to students with disabilities who are residents. Residency is defined by the geographic boundaries of the local educational agency in which the parent or parents have legal residence. Because the parent had custody of the student, the student’s residency followed the parent’s residency rather than the student’s asserted physical residence. The court also rejected the parent’s estoppel argument.
The court also addressed the district court’s refusal to reinstate the ALJ’s stay-put order. It concluded that when an ALJ determines that there is no jurisdiction, the stay-put order ends. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining to reinstate the ALJ’s stay-put order. The court also found no basis for compensatory education because there had been no IDEA violation.
The residency portion of the decision was less notable than the court’s treatment of stay-put. The principle that a student has the residency of the parent or guardian is commonly observed, and one court rejected the argument that waiver of a residency requirement was a reasonable accommodation required by disability discrimination laws. P.F. v. Taylor, 914 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2019). The text of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) provides that a child’s placement must be maintained “during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section.” That language has been applied to court proceedings challenging due process hearing decisions. See Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). Other cases have rejected that reading, and a court may modify the stay-put placement when circumstances require. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988), superseded in part by statute, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). Nothing in the text of § 1415(j), however, creates an exception to stay-put for appeals from decisions based on a denial of jurisdiction.
The decision is significant for the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that an ALJ’s stay-put order ends when the ALJ determines that there is no jurisdiction. That conclusion is notable because the statutory language requires maintenance of placement during the pendency of proceedings, and the opinion recognizes authority applying that protection to court proceedings challenging due process decisions. The court nevertheless upheld the refusal to reinstate stay-put after the jurisdictional dismissal.