Also known as: special need · special education · disability accommodations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An equitable device that permits a court to modify trust terms and create a supplemental trust for a disabled beneficiary. The modification preserves eligibility for public benefits while fulfilling the settlor's intent when unanticipated circumstances arise.
An equitable device that permits a court to modify trust terms and create a supplemental trust for a disabled beneficiary. The modification preserves eligibility for public benefits while fulfilling the settlor's intent when unanticipated circumstances arise.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Governmental interests beyond the normal need for law enforcement that render the warrant and probable-cause requirements impracticable. Such interests justify suspicionless searches when the program serves a special need closely tied to public safety or institutional administration.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Governmental interests beyond the normal need for law enforcement that render the warrant and probable-cause requirements impracticable. Such interests justify suspicionless searches when the program serves a special need closely tied to public safety or institutional administration.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sylvia Santos created a trust leaving an outright remainder to her grandson Solomon Silver, who later suffered a severe disability. Because unanticipated medical costs would exhaust the assets and disqualify him from public benefits, the court authorized conversion of the remainder into a special needs trust. The modification preserved the corpus for Solomon while advancing Sylvia's original purpose of providing for his welfare.
A court may authorize the conversion when circumstances not anticipated by the settlor would otherwise defeat the trust's purpose. The modification must further the settlor's intent by preserving assets for the disabled beneficiary while maintaining eligibility for public benefits.
Supporting sources
A village created a separate public school district to serve children with disabilities whose religious practices precluded attendance at nearby secular schools. Parents challenged the arrangement as an establishment of religion. The court examined whether the district's formation served a special need of delivering education to those children without advancing religion.
A public high school denied a student Bible club the same access to facilities granted other student groups. Club members argued the denial violated equal-access rules. The court assessed whether the school's policy reflected a special need to avoid religious endorsement or merely treated all groups equally.
A state employee with a disability sued under the ADA after being denied accommodation. The state asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court considered whether Congress had identified a special need for national legislation addressing patterns of unconstitutional state discrimination against disabled workers.
A school district barred a religious club from meeting in classrooms after hours while permitting secular clubs. Club leaders claimed viewpoint discrimination. The court evaluated whether the exclusion served a special need to maintain separation of church and state or instead infringed equal access.
A school district required student athletes to submit to random drug tests without individualized suspicion. A student challenged the policy as an unreasonable search. The court upheld the program because the district's interest in deterring drug use among athletes presented a special need beyond ordinary law enforcement.
Interests such as ensuring public safety on railroads, maintaining discipline in schools, and regulating closely supervised industries qualify when they extend beyond routine law enforcement. The program must be divorced from the general interest in crime control and must limit officer discretion.
No. When the primary purpose of the testing is to gather evidence for law enforcement or to coerce treatment, the special needs exception does not apply and ordinary Fourth Amendment requirements govern.
Supporting sources
No. Roadblocks must serve special needs related to roadway safety or border control. A primary purpose of detecting ordinary criminal wrongdoing requires individualized suspicion.
Supporting sources
No. Symbolic or generalized interests are insufficient. The government must demonstrate a concrete special need tied to the position that outweighs the privacy intrusion.
Supporting sources
…(G). In addition, despite the Court of Appeals' suggestion to the contrary, see 2 F. 3d 1342, 1365 (CA5 1993), there is no special need here for a clear indication of Congress' rationale. The statute does not interfere with the exercise of state or local authority. Cf., e. g. , Dellmuth v. Muth , 491 U. S. 223, 227-228…