Opinion ID: 1446255
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Text of the Act

Text: Turning to the present case, Arlington instructs that we must view NCLB from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept NCLB funds and the obligations that accompany those funds. In other words, we must determine whether NCLB furnishes clear notice to the official that her State, if it chooses to participate, will have to pay for whatever additional costs of implementing the Act that are not covered by the federal funding provided for under the Act. Or, as one might phrase the question, whether that state official would clearly understand that one of the State's obligations under the Act is the obligation to incur costs not paid for under the Act. Because § 7907(a) explicitly provides that [n]othing in this Act shall be construed to . . . mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act, a state official would not clearly understand that obligation to exist. To the contrary, based on this text, a state official could plausibly contend that she understood exactly the oppositethat her State need not comply with NCLB requirements for which federal funding falls short. That is not to say, however, that the Secretary's interpretation of the Act (discussed in more detail below) is frivolous. Indeed, perhaps the Secretary's view of the text is ultimately correct. But the only relevant question here is whether the Act provides clear notice to the States of their obligation. See Arlington, 126 S.Ct. at 2463 (In a Spending Clause case, the key is not what a majority of the Members of both Houses intend but what the States are clearly told regarding the conditions that go along with the acceptance of those funds.). With this rule in mind, we turn to the Secretary's interpretations of the text and explain why they do not persuade us that the States' funding obligations are clear.