S. M. v. Chichester School District

── S. M. v. Chichester School District ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 25-2750 _____________ S. M., by and through his parents, Michael C. and Danielle C.; Michael Ciavarelli; Danielle Ciavarelli v. CHICHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. No. 2:21-cv-04266 District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 12, 2026 Before: SHWARTZ, MASCOTT, and McKEE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 18, 2026) _____________________ OPINION ______________________ McKEE, Circuit Judge.  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Chichester School District (“Chichester”) appeals the District Court’s Order granting S.M.’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record on Count I (Appeal from Administrative Decision), entering judgment in favor of S.M., and ordering Chichester to fund S.M.’s residential educational placement at the Melmark School through August 2028. The District Court concluded that Chichester violated S.M.’s right to a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) by failing to offer him residential educational placement, determining that “appropriate relief must ensure that S.M. can receive the residential educational programming he was denied for the roughly 36 months between the Hearing Officer’s erroneous August 27, 2021 decision and the District Court’s September 4, 2024 order” and requiring Chichester to secure and fund placement at the Melmark School.1 Because Chichester has made clear that it will persist in challenging S.M.’s residential educational placement, notwithstanding prior rulings, “relief will only be appropriate if it protects S.M.’s ability to continue receiving the special education and related services he is long owed at the Melmark School without fear of displacement by Chichester.”2 We can add little to the District Court’s fine opinion. We will affirm for the reasons below. 1 S.M. v. Chichester Sch. Dist., No. CV 21-4266, 2025 WL 2404383, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2025). 2 Id. at *10 (citation modified). 2  I.3 “We review the District Court’s award of an equitable remedy under the [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)4] for abuse of discretion.”5 “An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.”6 Chichester argues that the District Court’s ordered relief “is a prospective FAPE Order formed as a compensatory education award when no compensatory education is due,”7 that (1) violates the IDEA and (2) strips the individualized education program (“IEP”) team of authority to change or challenge S.M.’s educational placement while also failing to place him in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). We are unpersuaded. The IDEA requires states that receive federal funding to provide a FAPE to all students with disabilities.8 The IDEA’s remedial provis