Boone v. Rankin County: Fifth Circuit Adopts “Abuse-of-Discretion” Review for Compensatory Education Under IDEA

Introduction

In Boone v. Rankin County Public School District, No. 23-60333 (5th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a familiar yet perennially thorny problem in special-education litigation: what relief is appropriate when a school district deprives a child of a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)? In answering that question, the court not only resolved the individual dispute between mother-advocate Olivia Boone and the Rankin County School District on behalf of her autistic son, K.A.; it also filled a doctrinal gap in Fifth Circuit jurisprudence. For the first time, the court expressly adopted the “abuse-of-discretion” standard for reviewing a district court’s decision to grant or deny compensatory education—an equitable remedy designed to make up for past IDEA violations.

The decision will guide district courts, parents, school districts, and practitioners across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by clarifying (1) how IDEA placement disputes must be analyzed under the Michael F. framework, and (2) what level of appellate deference attaches to a trial court’s equitable tailoring of compensatory educational services.

Summary of the Judgment

After Rankin County unilaterally decided to move K.A. from a therapeutic autism program (CARES) to a large middle school, Boone filed an IDEA due-process complaint and partially prevailed before the state hearing officer, who found an IDEA violation but declined to order compensatory services. Boone sought further relief and attorneys’ fees in federal district court; the district court:

Affirmed the administrative finding that the School District denied K.A. FAPE.
Upheld the denial of compensatory education beyond new evaluations, an updated IEP, and an elopement-safety plan.
Declared Boone the prevailing party and awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed on all issues. Key holdings include:

The School District’s proposed placement was not “reasonably calculated” to confer educational benefit because it was insufficiently individualized and predetermined, and it ignored K.A.’s severe elopement risk.
Nevertheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion in withholding broader compensatory services; equitable relief reasonably targeted Boone’s core grievances.
Boone is a prevailing party entitled to fees, because the relief materially altered the legal relationship between the parties.
Most significantly for future cases, the court officially adopted the “abuse-of-discretion” lens for reviewing compensatory-education determinations.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 386 (2017) – Reaffirmed IDEA’s “ambitious” standard and requirement that IEPs be “reasonably calculated” for progress. The panel cited it to frame what level of benefit K.A. should have received.
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) – Established the “basic floor of opportunity” concept; referenced to contrast the inadequate services provided to K.A.
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997) – Supplies the Fifth Circuit’s four-factor test (individualization, least-restrictive environment, coordination, demonstrated benefit) for determining FAPE. The court marched through these factors systematically.
Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989), and Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1992) – Provide the controlling standard for “least restrictive environment” (LRE) and mainstreaming. The appellate court distinguished these precedents when rejecting Boone’s LRE argument.
White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2003) – Held that “educational placement” differs from “site selection.” The panel explained why the Boone dispute implicated both a site and placement change, undercutting the School District’s procedural defense.
Lauren C. v. Lewisville ISD, 904 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2018) & Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) – Guided the prevailing-party and fee-shifting analysis.
Out-of-circuit cases—Reid v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.), Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup (9th Cir.), Lester H. v. Gilhool (3d Cir.)—were cited to show that other circuits already review compensatory-education decisions for abuse of discretion, bolstering the Fifth Circuit’s adoption of that standard.

2. Legal Reasoning

2.1 FAPE Determination Using the Michael F. Framework

The court affirmed that three of the four Michael F. factors favored Boone:

Individualization – The transition plan ignored elopement, a life-and-safety issue, and was “predetermined” by district administrators before parental input.
Coordination/Collaboration – Although stakeholders met, the school’s unilateral decision showed a breakdown in meaningful collaboration.
Demonstrated Benefit – Evidence showed regression: at fourteen K.A. functioned academically below where he had been at seven.

The fourth factor, LRE, was deemed neutral because Boone did not provide sufficient comparative evidence that Brandon Middle School was more restrictive than alternative placements. Nonetheless, because the “demonstrated benefit” factor is “critical,” its failure tipped the overall scales toward a FAPE denial.

2.2 Predetermination Doctrine

Predetermination under E.R. v. Spring Branch ISD occurs when the district “closes its mind” before parental consultation. The record—district officials stating, “He will be placed at Brandon Middle” and “if you disagree, file a complaint”—left little doubt the decision was fait accompli, violating procedural safeguards.

2.3 Adoption of “Abuse-of-Discretion” Standard for Compensatory Education

The Fifth Circuit acknowledged an intra-circuit lacuna: while other circuits had squarely articulated the standard of review, the Fifth had “yet to explicitly state” it. Recognizing that compensatory education is an equitable remedy and that “the ultimate exercise of equitable power is reviewed for abuse of discretion” (Bogan v. MTD), the court formally embraced that standard. This aligns the Fifth Circuit with the D.C., Ninth, and Third Circuits, promoting national uniformity.

2.4 Application of the New Standard

Applying deferential review, the panel held the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting relief to:

A comprehensive reevaluation;
A new IEP reflecting that evaluation;
A tailored transition & elopement-safety plan developed with Boone’s participation.

While Boone requested eight broad categories of compensatory services (including ABA therapy and ESY), the court reasoned that equitable remedies need only place the child where he would have been but for the violation, and district courts possess “broad discretion” to fashion that relief.

2.5 Attorneys’ Fees

Using the three-part Lauren C. test, the court found Boone a prevailing party because:

The hearing-officer order materially altered legal relations (mandatory reevaluation, safety plan, etc.).
The relief advanced IDEA’s purposes (ensuring parental collaboration and individualized services).
The administrative order supplied the necessary judicial imprimatur.

3. Impact of the Decision

Clarified Appellate Review of Compensatory Awards – Trial courts now know that, in the Fifth Circuit, equitable tailoring of compensatory education will be overturned only for abuse of discretion. Expect increased deference to individualized remedial orders and fewer successful appeals challenging the scope of compensatory services.
Emphasized Safety-Related Individualization – By treating elopement as a substantive FAPE issue, the court signaled that safety accommodations (not merely academics) must be expressly planned. Districts ignoring individualized safety risks do so at their peril.
Reinforced Anti-Predetermination Principle – Administrative pronouncements like “this is what will happen” before parental input may render an IEP inappropriate per se.
Fee-Shifting Guidance – Even partial successes (absent compensatory services) can justify prevailing-party status if they yield meaningful change; districts should anticipate fee exposure upon any substantive violation.
Strategic Considerations for Litigants – Parents may focus appellate arguments on clear-error findings and abuse-of-discretion misapplications rather than hoping for de novo re-weighing of equitable relief. Districts, conversely, will document collaborative efforts and tailor remedies in anticipation of deference.

Complex Concepts Simplified

FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) – The IDEA’s promise that every child with a disability receives personalized instruction and services enabling meaningful progress.
IEP (Individualized Education Program) – A legally binding, customized roadmap created by educators and parents specifying goals, services, and placement for the child.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) – IDEA’s preference that students with disabilities learn alongside nondisabled peers to the maximum appropriate extent.
Predetermination – An IDEA procedural violation occurring when a district makes placement decisions before involving parents, thus denying genuine participation.
Elopement – In special-education parlance, a student’s tendency to leave supervised, safe environments—requiring specific safety interventions.
Compensatory Education – Services awarded prospectively to make up for past educational deprivation (e.g., extra therapy hours, tutoring, specialized programs).
Abuse-of-Discretion Review – A deferential appellate standard; a decision stands unless it is based on an erroneous legal view or a clearly erroneous fact assessment.

Conclusion

Boone v. Rankin County is most notable for cementing the “abuse-of-discretion” standard governing compensatory-education rulings in the Fifth Circuit. The opinion also serves as a cautionary tale for school districts: failing to individualize an IEP—especially regarding safety—and predetermining placement can establish a FAPE violation even if some collaboration occurs. For parents and advocates, the decision illustrates that partial administrative victories can yield prevailing-party status and fee recovery, but expansive compensatory relief is far from automatic. Courts retain wide latitude to craft equitable remedies narrowly targeted to proven deficiencies, and their choices will now receive significant appellate deference. Going forward, stakeholders within the Fifth Circuit must calibrate litigation strategies—both at the IEP table and in the courtroom—accordingly.