Opinion ID: 1446255
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Former Secretary Expressed Plaintiffs' Interpretation of the Text

Text: We have concluded that a state official would not be on clear notice that her State, once it opts into NCLB, would be required to comply with NCLB requirements that are not paid for under the Act. We note here that even the Defendant's former views on this topic suggest that this conclusion is proper. As Plaintiffs explain, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige (since succeeded by current Secretary Margaret Spellings) stated that the Act contains language that says things that are not funded are not required.  (JA 20 (quoting Paige statement of Sept. 4, 2003) (emphasis added).) Reiterating this point in a later speech, Paige reassured that if it's not funded, it's not required. There is language in the bill that prohibits requiring anything that is not paid for.  (JA 21 (quoting Paige statement of Dec. 2, 2003) (emphasis added).) The Secretary does not dispute that her predecessor made these statements; she explained at oral argument that they were stray comments. Stray or not, the comments leave us to wonder how a state official would be on clear notice that her State would have to comply with obligations under the Act that are not funded when the Secretary of Education cited to appropriate text in the Act itself to assure States that there is no such requirement. It comes as no surprise that many state officials do not have this understanding in light of § 7907(a). See, e.g., Wisc. Atty. Gen. Ltr. Op. at 4 (May 12, 2004) (The language in 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a) . . . seems to bear only one reasonable interpretation: federal agencies and officials lack authority to require any State, or State subdivision, to take any action under the ESEA [which NCLB amended] that is not fully funded by federal monies.) (available at http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/33800/33758. pdf) (last visited Dec. 28, 2007); Nat'l Conf. of State Legislators Mem. (July 7, 2003) (noting, in a memorandum to State legislative presiding officers, chairs of education committees, and legislative education staff, that [u]nder the basic rules of statutory construction, the plain meaning of the statutory language [of § 7907(a)] is fairly clearstates, or local subdivisions, do not have to spend funds on the costs of the NCLB that are not paid for by the Act itself. ) (available at www.ncsl.org/statefed/nclblegal.htm) (last visited Dec. 28, 2007); 46 Conn. S. Proc. pt. 9, 2003 Sess. 2626, 2632 (May 21, 2003) (statements of Sen. Sullivan) (noting that Connecticut can only pray that that one magic phrase [in] Leave No Child Behind [sic] that says if the feds don't fund it, we don't have to do it, turns out to be real, because if the money ain't there folks, we can't do it.); 16 V.S.A. § 165 (2003) ([C]onsistent with [§ 7907] of the No Child Left Behind Act, neither the state nor any subdivision thereof shall be required to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under the Act in order to comply with the provisions of the Act.). To be sure, state officials may have their own interests in reading § 7907(a) to excuse their States' obligations to comply with unfunded requirements of NCLB; our point is merely that NCLB does not provide clear notice that their interpretation (and, apparently, the former Secretary's) is somehow misplaced.