Skip to main content

Special education reimbursement

Bautista v. Kamar H. Samuels

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Leonarda Bautista’s petition asks the Supreme Court to review a dispute over reimbursement for a private school placement for her child with a disability, including transportation costs.
Who it affects
Bautista did not get a Supreme Court decision on whether she can recover tuition or transportation costs.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Leonarda Bautista, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of A. B., Petitioner v. Kamar H. Samuels, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, et al.
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

She asks whether parents who meet two parts of the reimbursement test are presumed entitled to full reimbursement, whether her lawyer’s statement gave up the transportation claim, and which side must provide stronger proof.

The dispute concerns a parent’s request for school-district reimbursement for private placement and transportation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Question presented

1. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in order to determine whether the parent of a disabled child is entitled to reimbursement from the local school district for a unilateral placement, administrative officers and courts apply the Burlington/Carter analysis. If the parent prevails on the first two prongs of that test, is there a rebuttable presumption of full reimbursement, which the school district may rebut only by producing evidence showing that the equities do not favor full reimbursement? 2. At an impartial hearing seeking reimbursement for a private placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, does a Parent waive her right to seek transportation funding when her attorney makes a misstatement as to the relief sought, despite making a claim for transportation in the Due Process Complaint, presenting evidence to support the claim, and never abandoning the claim? 3. Under the Burlington/Carter test to determine a parent’s entitlement to public funding of a private placement, is the parent held to a higher standard of proof under Prong II than the school district is held under Prong I, or a lower standard of proof?

Documents

1

Docket activity

7
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

Show 2 more
  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    Jul 8, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis