In law school I had a professor who always drew a strong distinction between having a right to sue and having the ability to win. The Supreme Court in a very favorable decision in Forest Grove recognized that the parents had a right to sue in due process for reimbursement for a unilateral placement in a residential school because the school for years had ignored his special needs. This right existed even thought the student had not already been found eligible for services and no case study was done. The case was remanded to the district court that had ruled against the parents in the first round of litigation.
The district court on remand ruled against the parents again taking the position that his need for residential was not educationally based rather to address his drug problems which fall outside of the ambit of special education. Even from the facts of the case recited in the Supreme Court's decision it is plain the district court is distorting the facts of the case to fit its desired outcome. Have a right of action is entirely different than having a right to a fair shake or a clear path to victory; turns out my old law professor was right after all.