Opinion ID: 799639
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compliance with pre-Section 163 Reporting

Text: Requirements [8] NCLB requires the Secretary to file an annual report to Congress in which the Secretary presents national and statelevel data on compliance with NCLB goals. See 20 U.S.C. § 6311(h)(5). In their complaint, Appellants ask that the Secretary be enjoined to amend the reports previously submitted to Congress, in which he characterized alternative route teachers as “highly qualified.” Appellants ask that the Secretary be enjoined from characterizing alternative route interns defined by § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) as “highly qualified teachers” in his 2005-2006 report to Congress on that academic year. Appellants also ask that the Secretary be enjoined to “notify” Congress that his 2002-2003 report relied on the unlawful definition of “highly qualified teachers” contained in § 200.56(a)(2)(ii). [9] In Guerrero v. Clinton, 157 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 1998), we held that a federal court could not redress an injury based on an allegedly inadequate report that an agency is obligated to file with Congress. Id. at 1194. At issue in Guerrero was 5034 RENEE v. DUNCAN a requirement that the President “report annually” to Congress on the impact of a compact with federal territories and the State of Hawaii. Id. at 1191. We described the report as “purely informational.” Id. at 1195. We concluded, In sum, no legal consequences flow from [the] report and it has no “determinative or coercive effect upon the action of someone else” that in turn produced the [plaintiffs’] injury . . . . By the same token, the report is not agency action of the sort that is typically subject to judicial review. Because it triggers no legal consequences and determines no rights or obliga- tions, no check on the substance of the report is necessary. Having requested the report, Congress, not the judiciary, is in the best position to decide whether it’s gotten what it wants. Id. at 1195 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bennet v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)). [10] As in Guerrero, the reporting requirement of NCLB that Appellants seek to enforce is “purely informational.” The provision at issue, § 6311(h)(5), states, “The Secretary shall transmit annually to [two Committees of Congress] a report that provides national and State-level data on the information collected under paragraph (4).” 20 U.S.C. § 6311(h)(5). “Paragraph (4),” in turn, contains a requirement that the states report on seven specific metrics of academic success annually to the Secretary. 20 U.S.C. § 6311(h)(4). This reporting requirement is of the same character as the requirement in Guerrero. See 157 F.3d at 1191-92 n.4 (stating requirement that “the President shall report to the Congress with respect to the impact of” the compact on territorial governments and Hawai’i). Nothing in NCLB provides that the Secretary’s reports to Congress have any legal consequences. As in Guerrero, we hold that Appellants’ request for injunctive relief with respect to these reports was properly denied (though on a different basis) by the district court. RENEE v. DUNCAN 5035