Professionally, and ultimately legally, the definition of "specific learning disabilities" (SLD) has been "a long-standing source of controversy, conflict, and crisis." Yet students with SLD continue to be more numerous by far than any other group receiving special education services. The long-time controversy concerning the eligibility criteria for SLD reached a high point with the emergence of response to intervention (RTI) as purportedly more effective than the traditional severe discrepancy approach. The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provided that states may no longer require severe discrepancy and that school districts "may use a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of" its SLD identification procedures. The resulting IDEA regulations (2008) required states to "adopt" SLD criteria that must not require severe discrepancy, must permit RTI, and "may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures" for determining SLD eligibility. This article fills the gap in the literature with regard to the resulting state laws. The authors present a study that provides a more current and direct "snapshot" of the relevant state laws, separating out to the extent practicable state education agency (SEA) guidelines and survey respondent interpretations. The central question is: In response to the 2006 IDEA regulations' directive, which state laws have opted for mandating or merely permitting RTI, permitting or prohibiting severe discrepancy, and providing for the third other research-based alternative? (Contains 1 table.)