A persistent problem in the professional literature in school psychology and related fields, such as special education, is the insufficient treatment of legal issues in terms of not only quantity (e.g., Zaheer & Zirkel, 2014) but also quality (e.g., Zirkel, 2014). The quality dimension is illustrated in the coverage of the Supreme Court's recent major decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)--"Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (2017). The limited number of articles to date in the school psychology literature concerning "Endrew F." illustrate these overlapping quality concerns: (1) inaccurate synthesis of the Court's decision; (2) lack of sufficient differentiation between objective legal requirements and professional recommendations or advocacy; and (3) attribution to the Court of lessons that are neither addressed nor directly implied in its decision. This short treatment addresses these three quality concerns in four successive parts. The first part of this article provides a concise and objective synthesis of "Endrew F." The second part critiques two illustrative articles in the school psychology literature. The third part provides additional examples from related fields, including special education. The final part offers a few tentative recommendations.