Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/279

 546US1

68

Unit: $$U7

[09-04-08 12:12:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN

SCHAFFER v. WEAST Breyer, J., dissenting

partial due process hearing” provided by the state or local education agency. § 1415(f )(1)(A). If provided locally, either party can appeal the hearing ofﬁcer’s decision to the state educational agency. § 1415(g). Finally, the Act allows any “party aggrieved” by the results of the state hear­ ing(s) “to bring a civil action” in a federal district court. § 1415(i)(2)(A). In sum, the Act provides for school board action, followed by (1) mediation, (2) an impartial state due process hearing with the possibility of state appellate review, and (3) federal district court review. The Act also sets forth minimum procedures that the par­ ties, the hearing ofﬁcer, and the federal court must follow. See, e. g., § 1415(f )(1) (notice); § 1415(f )(2) (disclosures); § 1415(f)(3) (limitations on who may conduct the hearing); § 1415(g) (right to appeal); § 1415(h)(1) (“the right to be ac­ companied and advised by counsel”); § 1415(h)(2) (“the right to present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses”); § 1415(h)(3) (the right to a transcript of the proceeding); § 1415(h)(4) (“the right to written . . . ﬁndings of fact and decisions”). Despite this detailed procedural scheme, the Act is silent on the question of who bears the burden of persuasion at the state “due proc­ ess” hearing. The statute’s silence suggests that Congress did not think about the matter of the burden of persuasion. It is, after all, a relatively minor issue that should not often arise. That is because the parties will ordinarily introduce considerable evidence (as in this case where the initial 3-day hearing in­ cluded testimony from 10 witnesses, 6 qualiﬁed as experts, and more than 50 exhibits). And judges rarely hesitate to weigh evidence, even highly technical evidence, and to decide a matter on the merits, even when the case is a close one. Thus, cases in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) ﬁnds the evidence in precise equipoise should be few and far be­ tween. Cf. O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U. S. 432, 436–437 (1995). See also Individuals with Disabilities Education Im­