IBRAHIM ALZANDANI, Y.A., a minor by Next Friend Ibrahim Alzandani; W.A., a minor by Next Friend Nadhem Alnajar; A.M., a minor by Next Friend Abraham Muzib, Y.A., a minor by Next Friend Ibrahim Alzandani; W.A., a minor by Next Friend Nadhem Alnajar; A.M., a minor by Next Friend Abraham Muzib, v. HAMTRAMCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS (25-1603); MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (25-1602); WAYNE COUNTY REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AGENCY (25-1601) - Articles

All Content

IBRAHIM ALZANDANI, Y.A., a minor by Next Friend Ibrahim Alzandani; W.A., a minor by Next Friend Nadhem Alnajar; A.M., a minor by Next Friend Abraham Muzib, Y.A., a minor by Next Friend Ibrahim Alzandani; W.A., a minor by Next Friend Nadhem Alnajar; A.M., a minor by Next Friend Abraham Muzib, v. HAMTRAMCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS (25-1603); MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (25-1602); WAYNE COUNTY REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AGENCY (25-1601)

Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 12, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Stephen J. van Stempvoort, MILLER JOHNSON, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Kathleen A. Halloran, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant Michigan Department of Education.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Robert A. Dietzel, THRUN LAW FIRM, P.C., East Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant Hamtramck Public Schools. Tarik D. Turfe, HAMMOUD, DAKHLALLAH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Dearborn, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Stephen J. van Stempvoort, Kevin T. Sutton, Brandon S. Corcoran, MILLER JOHNSON, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Kathleen A. Halloran, Ticara D. Hendley, Neil A. Giovanatti, Marissa Wiesen, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant Michigan Department of Education.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Robert A. Dietzel, Kelly S. Bowman, THRUN LAW FIRM, P.C., East Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant Hamtramck Public Schools.

Attorneys 7: ON BRIEF: Tarik D. Turfe, Kassem M. Dakhlallah, HAMMOUD, DAKHLALLAH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Dearborn, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 8: ON BRIEF: Selene Almazan-Altobelli, COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC., Towson, Maryland, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and RITZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

SUTTON, Chief Judge. A group of Michigan parents alleges that a local public school district denied their children access to special-education services. The parents, as a result, filed this lawsuit under several federal laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, what’s come to be called the IDEA for short. The IDEA establishes an administrative hearing process for parents and school districts to resolve special-education disputes. At the end of that process, it allows parents to sue in federal court if they are “aggrieved by the findings and decision” of the administrative hearing officer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Even though the parents in this case never pursued an administrative hearing—the process that creates their cause of action—they nonetheless claim a right to bring this lawsuit. We disagree and reverse the district court’s contrary determination.

Attachments: