In Davis v. Evergreen Park School District 231, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that a student with autism was not entitled to enrollment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) stay-put provision when the District had previously determined that the student was a non-resident. The Court denied the guardian’s request to return the student to school while the IDEA, Section 504, Title VI, and constitutional claims were pending.
The case arose after a residency hearing determined that the student did not live within the District’s boundaries and therefore was not eligible to attend its schools. The guardian argued that IDEA stay-put protections should have allowed the student to remain enrolled during the dispute. Still, the Court found that state law, not the IDEA, governs residency determinations. As a result, the Court concluded that the stay-put provision did not require overturning the prior district determination of non-residency.
The guardian also alleged that the student was targeted because of disability and race, asserting claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. However, the Court found insufficient evidence that the residency investigation or determination was motivated by the student’s disability or race, or that there was a policy or practice of discriminating against similarly situated students. The Court further noted that the student had been out of the District for several months and that there was no evidence the student could not attend another school. As a result, the Court concluded that the guardian was unlikely to succeed on the claims and denied the request to require the District to re-enroll the student while the lawsuit continues.
This decision reinforces that IDEA stay-put protections generally apply to disputes involving a student’s educational placement and FAPE rights, not necessarily to residency determinations governed by state law. For school leaders, the ruling confirms that districts may investigate residency and enforce enrollment eligibility.
For districts facing residency and special education claims, the interplay among the various laws is complex and poses a risk of highly expensive litigation. For any questions on the interplay concerning residency, IDEA, and students’ disability concerns, please reach out to any of our Students and Special Education Practice Group attorneys.
Source: Davis v. Evergreen Park School District 231, No. 26-cv-05005 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2026)
