# Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast

> Supreme Court of the United States · November 14, 2005 · 546 U.S. 49

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706864

## Case

- **Full name:** SCHAFFER, a Minor, by His Parents and Next Friends, SCHAFFER Et Vir, Et Al. v WEAST, SUPERINTENDENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** November 14, 2005
- **Citations:** 546 U.S. 49; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1; 74 U.S.L.W. 4009; 126 S. Ct. 528; 163 L. Ed. 2d 387; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 8554
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 728 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706864

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the “‘rule is far from being universal and has many qualifications upon its application.’ ” (quoting Greenleafs Lessee v. Birth, 6 Pet. 302, 312, 8 L.Ed. 406 (1832); citing 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 337, p. 413 (5th ed. 1999) (“Very often one must plead…
- recognizing the ordinary default rule that claimants bear the burden of persuasion regarding the essential aspects of their claims may not apply to establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of their adversaries
- concluding that, where a statute was silent on the burden of persuasion and “[a]bsent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise,” the burden “lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief’
- holding that burden of proof in due process hearing is properly on party requesting relief, but leaving open whether states could override that rule through enactment of their own requirements
- finding that § 1415(b)(7)(A) does not require claimant to identify a specific IEP relating to the alleged problem

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens,
concurring.
It is common ground that no single principle or rule solves all cases by setting forth a general test for ascertaining the incidence of proof burdens when both a statute and its legislative history are silent on the question. See Alaska Dept, of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U. S. 461, 494, n. 17 (2004); see also ante, at 57; post, at 63 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I do not understand the majority to disagree with the proposition that a court, taking into account “‘policy considerations, convenience, and fairness,’” post, at 63 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), could conclude that the purpose of a statute is best effectuated by placing the burden of persuasion on the defendant. Moreover, I agree with much of what Justice Ginsburg has written about the special aspects of this statute. I have, however, decided to join the Court’s disposition of this case, not only for the reasons set forth in Justice O’Connor’s opinion, but also because I believe that we should presume that public school officials *63 are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under this important statute.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706864. Public record. Not legal advice.