Running head: MILLS V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF 1

COLUMBIA

Landmark Court Case: Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia

Heather Jun

College of Southern Nevada

MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia was a class action law suit in

1972 that was entered on behalf of seven children who had disabilities or behavior problems,

including Peter Mills, an African American boy. The class action law suit was intended to

represent all students with disabilities and behavior problems, even though the seven children

were of the same class and race. The lawsuit stated that these children were not included in

school and/or not provided educational services due to their alleged disabilities or behavior

problems. The District of Columbia stated it did not have the funds to provide specialized

services for students with disabilities and/or behavior problems. It was ordered by the courts

that, “by January 3, 1972, defendants shall initiate efforts to identify remaining members of the

class not presently known to them, and also by that date, shall notify counsel for plaintiffs of the

nature and extent of such efforts” (United States District Court (Report No. 1939-71), 1972). In

addition, the district was ordered to conduct a survey with all schools and District of Columbia

agencies that could have knowledge of any remaining members of the same class. The District

failed to comply with this order. The plaintiff’s estimation was that approximately 18,000 of the

22,000 students with disabilities were not provided specialized programs.

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia was a landmark case because

“The drafting of P.L. 94-142 was guided by these court decisions and a recognition of the federal

role in ensuring that all children with disabilities in the nation are provided the equal opportunity

that the Constitution guaranteed” (Testimony, 1998). P.L. 94-142 has had a positive impact on

millions of students with disabilities throughout the country. This case was also a landmark case

because all children are to be provided an education, an alternative education, or a special

education. It is required that there must be a hearing to review the progress of any student in
MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 3

alternative or special education. This education is to be provided regardless of a child’s

disability, impairment, or behavior. The District of Columbia cannot discipline, suspend, expel,

interschool transfer, or exclude a child from education for more than two days without providing

the student with a hearing. The hearing is required to be held within four days of the delivery of

the written notice.

This case went to the Supreme Court because the defendants alleged that they were not

provided a hearing or a follow up review of the status of the children’s cases. It is stated that the

children were not provided the same education or the same type of training as other children.

Also, it was found in the beginning of this case that what was occurring was “excluding,

suspending, expelling, reassigning and transferring of ‘exceptional’ children from regular public-

school classes without affording them due process of law” (United States District Court (Report

No. 1939-71), 1972).

The side that won the case was the plaintiffs. The District of Columbia agreed that they

failed to provide public education to all children residing in the District. The District also failed

to meet deadlines given by the courts to find out exactly how many residents in the District of

Columbia needed education and/or special education services. “The Court held that no child

could be denied a public education because of ‘mental, behavioral, physical or emotional

handicaps or deficiencies”’ (United States District court (Report No. 348 F. Supp. 866

(D.D.C.1972), 1972). The Court also stated that if “sufficient funds are not available to finance

all of the services and programs that are needed and desirable in the system, then the available

funds must be expended equitably in such a manner that no child is entirely excluded from a

publicly supported education consistent with his needs and ability to benefit therefrom” (United

States District Court (Report No. 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972), 1972).
MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4

References

TESTIMONY May 13, 1998 STEPHANIE SMITH LEE PARENT

OAKTON, VIRGINIA HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE SPECIAL

EDUCATION FUNDING. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional

Testimony. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-

com.ezproxy.library.csn.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3SP8-

56W0-0003-11CF-00000-00&context=1516831

United States District Court, District of Columbia (1972). Mills v. Board of Education of

District of Columbia (Report No. 1939-71). Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19721214348fsupp86611090.xml

United States District Court, District of Columbia (1972). The Right to Education (Report No.

348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972)). Retrieved from https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-

education/