Certification of State Law Questions in IDEA Class-Size Disputes: Cruz v. Banks
Introduction
Cruz v. Banks is a 2025 decision of the Second Circuit that arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Neysha Cruz, on behalf of her son O.F., challenged the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE”) 2020 and 2021 Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”), arguing that her son’s placement in a twelve‐student classroom violated a state regulation mandating six‐student maximums for children with “highly intensive management needs.” The DOE responded that a separate New York regulation permitted a twelve‐student class for children with “severe multiple disabilities.” When both regulations appeared to apply, the question became whether the DOE was required to comply with both limits or could choose the more permissive one.
After the IHO and State Review Officer found in the DOE’s favor and the district court affirmed, the Second Circuit—recognizing an unsettled question of New York law that recurs in IDEA litigation—certified the interpretive issue to the New York Court of Appeals. The case crystallizes the interplay between federal IDEA rights, state‐level regulatory requirements, and the federal courts’ power to seek authoritative answers on ambiguous state law.
Summary of the Judgment
The Second Circuit affirmed that:
- The DOE offered O.F. a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) under IDEA.
- The D75 Horan School could implement O.F.’s services within its standard school day.
- The DOE permissibly placed O.F. in a 12:1:4 classroom under one state regulation.
- No precedential New York decision directly addresses how two overlapping class‐size rules operate together.
Because the key interpretive question—whether §§ 200.6(h)(4)(ii)(a) and (iii) of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations are cumulative or alternative options—was unsettled under state law, the Second Circuit certified that question to the New York Court of Appeals under 22 NYCRR § 500.27(a) and Local Rule 27.2(a).
Analysis
Precedents Cited
- Burlington/Carter test (Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993))—governs IDEA tuition reimbursement.
- IDEA standard of review—de novo review of IDEA cases, but deference to state administrative findings of educational expertise (M.O. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2015); M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012)).
- New York regulatory deference—New York courts “must defer” to an agency’s rational interpretation of its own regulations (Peckham v. Calogero, 12 N.Y.3d 424 (2009); Elcor Health Servs., Inc. v. Novello, 100 N.Y.2d 273 (2003)).
- Certification in federal courts—permissible when no controlling state precedent exists on a determinative state‐law question (Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974); In re Peaslee, 547 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2008); Jones v. Cattaraugus–Little Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 96 F.4th 539 (2d Cir. 2024)).
Legal Reasoning
1. IDEA framework
Under IDEA, disabled students are entitled to a FAPE documented in an IEP. If parents believe the IEP is deficient, they may place the child privately, seek reimbursement, and invoke state administrative processes before suing in federal court.
2. Class‐size regulation
New York’s 8 NYCRR § 200.6(h)(4) prescribes maximum class sizes by category:
- (ii)(a): “Highly intensive” management needs → max 6 students.
- (iii): “Severe multiple disabilities” → max 12 students, plus 1 staff per 3 students.
3. State‐law uncertainty
The Second Circuit found no definitive New York decision interpreting §§ 200.6(h)(4)(ii)(a) and (iii) together. Federal deference to state educational expertise cannot override a genuine gap in state law. Certification enables the New York Court of Appeals to supply an authoritative construction, ensuring consistency across future IDEA disputes.
Impact
Immediate effect
– The New York Court of Appeals will be asked to decide whether overlapping class‐size rules function cumulatively or as alternatives.
– The federal litigation stays open; the Second Circuit retains jurisdiction and will apply the state court’s answer.
Broader implications
– Provides a roadmap for resolving ambiguous state regulations in federal IDEA cases.
– Underscores the interplay between federal IDEA mandates and state‐level implementation details.
– Reinforces the certification mechanism as a tool to reconcile federal‐state tensions when state law is unsettled.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education): IDEA‐guaranteed education tailored to each disabled child’s unique needs.
- IEP (Individualized Education Program): A written plan detailing a student’s goals, placement, and services.
- Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO): A state‐level decision‐maker who initially considers disputes over an IEP.
- State Review Officer (SRO): Reviews IHO decisions on appeal within the state administrative framework.
- Burlington/Carter test: A three‐part inquiry to decide when parents may obtain tuition reimbursement: (1) Was the public IEP adequate? (2) Was the private placement appropriate? (3) Do the equities favor reimbursement?
- Certification: A federal court procedural device to ask a state’s highest court to resolve an unsettled question of state law.
Conclusion
Cruz v. Banks exemplifies the complex federal‐state dynamic at the heart of IDEA litigation. When conflicting state regulations give rise to genuinely unsettled interpretive questions, federal courts may properly certify those questions to the state’s highest tribunal. This ensures that IDEA’s promise of a free appropriate public education is implemented consistently, respecting both federal standards and state regulatory details. The forthcoming decision from the New York Court of Appeals will not only resolve O.F.’s placement dispute but will guide countless future cases involving overlapping state‐law requirements for students with disabilities.
Comments