.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Legal Update for Special Education Law – Case Law Update

Legal Update for Special Education Law – February 2026

February 3, 2026

by Jacob M. Gilboy

Pennsylvania Federal Court Dismisses IDEA AgeOut Challenge for Lack of Standing

A.K. et al v. Council Rock School District et al., No. 2:25-cv-00294 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2025)

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed the standing and questions surrounding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in regards to the “age-out” provision. This provision speaks to the availability of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), up until age 22. The plaintiffs, four students who qualify as children with disabilities under the IDEA, and their parents, sued Council Rock and Central Bucks School Districts, where the students attend school. The plaintiffs alleged that the districts threatened to terminate FAPE at age 21. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of standing and ripeness, which the district court granted without adjudicating the substantive age-out question.

The plaintiffs alleged that the districts had adopted a policy of terminating students’ FAPE at the end of the school year in which they turn 21, stating that policy violates the IDEA, and “will deprive Plaintiffs of up to a year of a FAPE at a critical juncture of their lives.” The court, while not directly addressing the age-out question, held that the claims could not survive, and dismissal was appropriate due to a lack of standing because the alleged harm was speculative and not imminent.

The decision is noteworthy because it illustrates how a federal court could deal with an IDEA age-out dispute by jurisdiction rather than its merits. Thus, age-out claims face both substantive and procedural hurdles, while standing issues may be dispositive.

 Legal Update for Special Education Law – February 2026 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.