Opinion ID: 789130
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Implementation of the Act's Framework; Contemporaneous Lawsuits

Text: 7 On January 18, 2002, DOE published a request for advice and recommendations in the Federal Register. 67 Fed.Reg. 2770. On February 12, 2002, DOE issued an invitation for the submission of possible participants in the negotiated rulemaking. See Email from Susan B. Neuman, Ed.D., Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education (Feb. 12, 2002), reprinted in Joint Appendix at 380-81. While the notice did stress that [t]he nominees should be practitioners ... [i.e.], they should be significantly involved with implementing and operating Title I programs, id., it also noted that the negotiated rulemaking was to include representatives of Federal, State and local administrators; parents; teachers and paraprofessionals; members of local school boards; and other organizations.... Id. 8 The committee convened by the Secretary consisted of 24 members. According to the DOE, this body consisted of six representatives of State Administrators and State Boards of Education, four representatives of Local Administrators and Local School Boards, four representatives of Principals and Teachers, seven representatives of Students (including one teacher, a few administrators, and a representative of a Diocese), one representative of Business Interests, and two representatives of the DOE. 67 Fed.Reg. 9223, 9224 (Feb. 28, 2002), corrected at 67 Fed.Reg. 9935 (Mar. 5, 2002). The parties do not specify whether any of the non-parent/teacher representatives are, themselves, parents or teachers. Appellants dispute the nominal makeup of this body. They claim that only one member represented the interests of all public school parents and students, because some representatives actually stood in for multiple perspectives. Brief for Appellants at 11. 9 The February 28 notice gave individuals and groups who felt that his or her interests [we]re not adequately represented by this ... group the opportunity to petition at the March 11 meeting, in person, to be seated as a negotiator. 67 Fed.Reg. 9224. Plaintiff organization Designs For Change attempted to petition by phone to be seated (claiming that travel was economically infeasible). The DOE declined to hear the phoned-in petition. Decl. of Weckstein, Joint Appendix at 121. Appellants assert that Center for Law and Education also petitioned to be seated, Brief for Appellant at 13, although no such petition is apparent from the record. Likewise, it is not apparent that plaintiff Lindsey petitioned to be seated. 10 Appellants filed suit in District Court on March 8, 2002. They alleged that the committee did not achieve an equitable balance between representatives of parents and students and representatives of educators and education officials, and sought a preliminary injunction. While the suit was pending, the committee convened, reviewed the Secretary's draft regulations, and reached consensus on every issue of academic standards and assessments before it. See 67 Fed.Reg. 30,452 (May 6, 2002). The Secretary received the committee's proposed rules, and published them for public notice and comment. Id. During the comment period, the DOE convened five regional meetings for further comment. Id. 11 In May 2002, the District Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over Appellants' challenge on two grounds. First, it held that the NRA § 570 judicial-review bar precluded judicial review of a challenge to the committee's composition prior to promulgation of final rules. Ctr. for Law and Educ. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 209 F.Supp.2d 102, 106-07 (D.D.C.2002). The court noted the plaintiffs' argument that § 570 only applies to the process of committee deliberation, as 20 U.S.C. § 6571 provides that committee members would participate in such process.... 209 F.Supp.2d. at 107. But the court ultimately rejected this interpretation of process because of the implications of plaintiffs' theory. Id. Specifically, such interpretation would require DOE to segregate the NCLBA into process and non-process provisions, and apply the NRA accordingly; the Court saw such segregation and selective application to be implausible. Id. at 107-08. Moreover, to allow for lawsuits over selection of committee members would make compliance with the NCLBA's strict time limits infeasible. Id. at 108. 12 Second, the court held that review was unavailable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because selection of the committee was not final agency action. Id. at 111. Appellants filed an appeal, which later was stayed at Appellants' request. 13 In July 2002, the DOE published its final rules on state standards and assessments. 67 Fed.Reg. 45,038 (July 5, 2002) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200). The final rules took effect on August 5, 2002. Id. 14 In December 2002, Appellants filed a new complaint. They did not challenge the substance of the rules on traditional APA grounds. See 5 U.S.C. § 706. Instead, they again focused on the composition of the committee, calling for the rules to be set aside and a new committee formed. On March 26, 2004, the District Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Appellants lacked standing. Ctr. for Law and Educ. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 315 F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C.2004). The court held that DFC and CLE (the organizational plaintiffs) failed to demonstrate a procedural injury because the Act contains no requirement that advocacy groups be represented on the negotiated rulemaking committee. Id. at 23. The court also rejected the organizations' standing on other grounds regarding lack of actual injury (i.e., the rules do[ ] no more than arguably offend their policy goals, id. at 24) and lack of causation (i.e., the alleged injury was not caused by the formation of the committee, but rather, by subsequent choices made by State agencies. Id. at 25). As to the individual plaintiff, Rachelle Lindsey, the court held that because the Act created no enforceable right to have an equitably balanced committee, Lindsey suffered no actual injury. The risk that her children would not receive a high-quality education was too hypothetical and was dependant on the actions of the States, not the DOE. Id. at 26-29. Finally, the court also held that incorporation of the NRA included incorporation of its bar on judicial review of the establishment of the negotiated rulemaking committee. Id. at 29-33.