Brown v. Board, In re: Gault, and, most recently, Roper v. Simmons—these are just a few of the better-known Supreme Court decisions that have profoundly altered the legal status, educational prospects, and rights of children in the United States.

Among the cases which the court has accepted for review in the coming term, there are three which will have an impact on children or youth.

Special Education: Who Must Bear the Burden of Proof?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, contains numerous procedural safeguards for students with educational disabilities and their parents.

One provision of the act gives both parents and local school districts the right to bring a dispute over a child's individual education program to an administrative hearing officer for a resolution.

In the pending Supreme Court review of Schaffer v. Weast, the court will be asked to decide an issue that isn't dealt with in IDEA: If parents bring such a dispute to a hearing, which side has the burden of the proof—the parents or the school district?

Schaffer v. Weast grew out of the experiences of a Montgomery County, Maryland family. Brian Schaffer, who had been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, was enrolled in a private school by his parents, who then sought tuition reimbursement from the school district. Instead, the public schools offered an individual education plan, or IEP, for Brian that called for him to attend a public middle school near his home.

Brian Schaffer's parents claimed that the IEP was inadequate to meet their son's educational needs. A federal appeals court ruled that it is up to the parents, as the dissatisfied parties bringing the complaint, to prove that the IEP was inadequate, rather than up to the school district to prove otherwise.

That's the question which the Supreme Court will consider. The Bush administration has fielded a brief supporting the school district's position.

The case reflects the perennial funding problems that drive many special-education disputes. For cash-strapped school districts, the ability to serve special education students in regular public schools rather than having to pay private-school tuition and transportation costs can make a big financial difference—one that can have an impact on how well the district serves its regular-education students. For parents seeking an optimal educational experience for a child with a learning or other disability, there is always the suspicion that school districts create IEP's with an eye toward saving money, rather than meeting the needs of their child.

Parental Consent for Minors

One of the most high-profile cases that the Court has agreed to hear in the next term is also one that affects minors. It's Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, concerning a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification at least 48 hours before an abortion may be performed on an "unemancipated minor," meaning a young woman under the age of 18 who is not legally emancipated from her parents.

While the law allows exceptions to the parental notification requirement in the case of medical emergencies, this exception only applies if the pregnant teen's life would be endangered by a delay. In cases where a delay could cause serious medical problems short of death, the law does not permit an exception. This is the portion of the law that has been found unconstitutional in lower court rulings.

Many court observers believe that retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would have agreed that the New Hampshire law is unconstitutional, and that her decision would have guaranteed a majority of the court in favor of that position. So the outcome of this case may well depend on the judicial philosophy of a newcomer to the court.

Military Recruiters on Campus

Finally, Rumsfeld v. Forum of Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), concerns a challenge to the 1996 Solomon Amendment, the federal law which requires colleges and other institutions of higher education to give military recruiters the same access to students and campuses that they give other potential employers—or else lose federal funding.

A coalition of 31 law schools has challenged the Solomon Amendment, arguing that hosting military recruiters violates their anti-discrimination policies because the military excludes openly gay individuals from serving. A lower court agreed with the schools, saying the amendment probably violates the First Amendment to the Constitution by compelling the institutions to "assist in the expressive act of recruiting," and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement.

The government argues that the law does not compel colleges to host military recruiters—they have the option of barring recruiters and going without the federal funding. They could also presumably bar recruiting efforts by all prospective employers, and preserve their funding that way. Both options, however, would be costly, unpopular, and difficult for the institutions to carry out.

Though the Solomon Amendment has been the law since 1996, it was not strictly enforced until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As the military struggles to maintain recruiting goals in the face of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, access to potential recruits has become more important.

Susan Phillips is the editor of Connect for Kids.