context: In the School Committee case, the parents were statutorily entitled to the cost of the special education their child never received, and for which they expended their own money. Unlike Hubbard, they, like the State of Massachusetts in Bowen, met all the pre-existing legal obligations to receive a cash entitlement from the government, at the time they were denied it.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that back pay was equitable under the Internal Revenue Code but nevertheless compensatory
citation_a.sentence: Cf. United States v. Burke, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1867, 119 L.Ed.2d 34 (finding that back pay was equitable under the Internal Revenue Code but nevertheless compensatory).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 105 S.Ct. 2002, 2002
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that the Education for the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. SS 1401 et seq., provides for public payment of private school expenses when an appropriate public education cannot be provided
citation_b.sentence: See id. at 369, 105 S.Ct. at 2002 (noting that the Education for the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., provides for public payment of private school expenses when an appropriate public education cannot be provided). At any rate, the Court’s treatment of the reimbursement in School Committee as restitutionary was in a completely different context than § 702 and required no decision as to whether the relief was specific.