The Pennhurst and Rowley Decisions: Issues and Implications

Abstract

The Supreme Court recently delivered two significant decisions interpreting the federal rights of the handicapped. In Pennhurst v. Halderman (1981), the Court ruled that the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act contains a statement of national goals for the developmentally disabled, but does not create substantive rights to adequate treatment. In Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), the Court interpreted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act as assuring handicapped children procedural safeguards and an individualized educational program, but not placing an obligation on states to provide a particular level of education or equal educational opportunities for such children. Both decisions suggest a reduced federal role in determining what constitutes appropriate programs and services for the handicapped.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong v. Kline, 629 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1980, cert. denied sub nom., Scanlon v. Battle, 101 S. Ct. 3123 (1981).

A Blow to the Retarded. Newsweek, May 4, 1981, p. 55.

Bell's Rules for Schools Are Attacked, The Louisville Times, August 3, 1982, p. A–1.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982).

Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6000 et seq. (1976).

Education Daily, July 13, 1982, p. 2.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1976).

General Electric Company v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976).

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 446 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D. Pa., 1977).

10.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1979).

11.

Matter of “A” Family, 602 P.2d 157 (Mont. 1979).

12.

North v. District of Columbia Board of Education, 471 F. Supp. 136 (D.D.C. 1979).

13.

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981).

14.

Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District, 483 F. Supp. 528 (S.D. N.Y. 1980). (a).

15.

Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District, 632 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980).(b).

16.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1976).

17.

Tatro v. State of Texas, 625 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1980).