In this study, I define and analyze three conflicting positions that constitute the Regular Education Initiative in light of 24 federal and state court decisions. These cases either have established legal precedents in the field of special education law or have raised issues that educators must consider when proposing changes within an educational setting that is itself subject to numerous legal constraints. I conclude that compared to its counterparts, the "Little Change Model" complies with more of these standards (e.g., due process, limited funding, equal access, duplication of services, and quality of education). Of the two remaining positions, the "Extreme Change Model," which includes the concept known as "full inclusion," appears to be the least compliant.In the field today, a lack of consensus exists among professionals as to exactly what the Regular Education Initiative (REI) entails. Various proposals have been offered concerning both what REI is and how it should be implemented. After categorizing these proposals, this study examines each in light of the judicial decisions that serve as the legal foundation for RL. 94-142 and subsequent pieces of federal legislation. The primary issue addressed herein is, Do any of these proposals comply with the legal mandates set forth by both the state and federal judiciary in these cases? The reader should keep in mind that our system of justice includes several different levels of courts. The highest is, of course, the United States Supreme Court. Any decision rendered by this body is binding upon every branch of both the federal government and all the state governments (see citations in which the initials "U.S." appear). Decisions rendered by the federal circuit courts of appeal are binding only upon those federal and state districts that constitute that federal circuit (see citations in which the initials "F.2d" appear). Federal trial court decisions are binding only upon that portion of a particular state in which the court is located (see citations in which the initials "F. Supp." appear).At the state level, three types of courts also exist: supreme, appellate, and trial.The only state-level decisions cited in this paper are from state supreme courts.As these decisions affect only the state in which they were decided, they have been included not because of the scope of their influence, but because of the potential importance of the issue they raise.In Will (1986) identified the following major obstacles:1. Eligibility requirements lead to fragmentation, and in some cases a total lack, of service delivery. 2. Less than ideal administrative practices lead to lowered accountability and expectation standards. 3. Stigmatization of students results from the eligibility/identification process. 4. The placement process has been turned into a battleground rather than a cooperative process among all interested parties.Will further contended that the philosophy of the pull-out programs that currently serve as the cornerstone of special education was fundamentally flawed....