Opinion ID: 2446257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AU's challenge to AUD's licensure.

Text: Appellants argue that, even before the trial court issued its order, the dispute about AUD's licensure by the Commission was rendered moot by the 2008 Amendment Act, the legislation that clarified that an educational institution may be licensed to operate in the District only if it maintains a facility here, i.e., a physical structure ... including suitable housing, classrooms, laboratories, and library resources, as required by the nature of the program or the student body. D.C.Code §§ 38-1302(11), (14) and 38-1309(a)(2). Both the District and AUD take the position that the 2008 Amendment Act rendered AUD ineligible for licensing, since AUD has no physical presence in the District of Columbia ... [ i.e., ] it has no facilities, no employees, leases no space and provides no educational services [within] the District of Columbia; both acknowledge that AUD's license has expired; and AUD affirms that it is no longer even qualified for a Degree Granting License as of August 16, 2008, the effective date of the 2008 Amendment Act. We accept the District's interpretation (which also is AUD's interpretation) that AUD is ineligible for licensure, inasmuch as the interpretation is a reasonable construction of the statutory language, contravenes nothing in the (scant) legislative history, [9] and represents the position of the Commission, the agency charged with implementing the relevant statutory provisions. See Nova Univ. v. Educational Inst. Licensure Comm'n, 483 A.2d 1172, 1190-91 (D.C. 1984) (applying, in evaluating Commission's position, principle that when an agency's decision is based on an `interpretation of the statute and regulations it administers, [that interpretation] will be sustained unless shown to be unreasonable or in contravention of the language or legislative history of the statute.') (citation omitted). Although AU appears to be correct that the Commission rather abruptly changed its interpretation even prior to enactment of the 2008 Amendment Act, and even though an agency's changed interpretation of a statute may command less deference than a longstanding interpretation, [10] the amendments to Chapter 13 effected through the 2008 Amendment Act amply explain and justify the Commission's changed interpretation. Those amendments effectively nullified AUD's license. We conclude therefore that the 2008 legislation deprived the trial court of the ability to grant, and that this court has no power to sustain, the initial relief that AU soughtan order that the Commission revoke AUD's license. [11] Accordingly, we agree with appellants that the issue of AUD's licensure is moot. See Settlemire v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 898 A.2d 902, 905 (D.C.2006) (explaining that an event that renders relief unnecessary renders a matter moot); Thorn v. Walker, 912 A.2d 1192, 1195 (D.C.2006) ([I]f ... the appellate court can provide no effective relief, the case is moot.). [12] Consequently, we vacate that portion of the court's order requiring the Commission to revoke AUD's license. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 21, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (explaining that if a judgment has become moot while awaiting review, an appellate court may not consider its merits, but should reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.)