Opinion ID: 799639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Before Passage of Section 163

Text: In this section of the opinion, we discuss Appellant’s challenge to 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) before the passage of Section 163. Before its passage, we concluded that Appellants had Article III standing and that § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) was inconsistent with the plain language of NCLB. In this section, we recapitulate our discussion and holding in Renee II.
In a case where Article III justiciability is in question, we normally begin our discussion with that question because Article III justiciability is a prerequisite to reaching the merits of the dispute. But we reverse the usual order of discussion because we think our discussion of the merits will help the reader understand our discussion of Article III standing.
The challenged federal regulation seeks to interpret and to implement NCLB. The regulation was adopted by the responsible federal agency through notice and comment rulemaking. We therefore applied the analytical framework outlined in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The first question is “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 842-843; see also Pac. Nw. Generating Coop. v. Dep’t of Energy, 580 F.3d 792, 806 (9th Cir. 2009). If, however, we determine that Congress has not clearly spoken on the precise question, the second question is whether the agency’s interpretation “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. Because the intent of Congress, as expressed 5024 RENEE v. DUNCAN in NCLB before the passage of Section 163, was clear, we did not get beyond the first question. [1] NCLB provides that an alternative-route teacher is “highly qualified” once he or she has obtained “full State certification.” Before the passage of Section 163, the statutory text provided, in pertinent part: The term “highly qualified” — (A) when used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school teacher teaching in a State, means that —
tification as a teacher (including certifi- cation obtained through alternative routes to certification)[.] 20 U.S.C. § 7801(23) (emphasis added). NCLB did not define “full State certification,” but it made clear — whatever “full State certification” meant — that such certification must have been obtained before a teacher could be characterized as “highly qualified.” [2] The federal regulation, quoted at length above, begins by essentially repeating the pre-Section 163 statutory language. The regulation provides that a “highly qualified teacher” “must . . . have obtained full State certification as a teacher, which may include certification obtained through alternative routes to certification.” 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a)(1)(i) (emphasis added). It then goes on, however, to provide that an alternative-route teacher is “highly qualified” even if he or she has not obtained “full State certification.” It provides that a teacher “meets the requirements in paragraph (a)(1)” (which include the requirement that “full State certification” have already been obtained), if that teacher “[i]s participating in an alternative route to certification program” and RENEE v. DUNCAN 5025 “[d]emonstrates satisfactory progress toward full certification as prescribed by the State.” Id. § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). In his pre-Section 163 brief to us, the Secretary pointed out that the meaning of “full State certification” in NCLB was ambiguous because it depends to a substantial degree on state law. We agreed that the meaning of “full State certification” in NCLB is ambiguous because it substantially depends on state law. But this ambiguity was irrelevant. [3] Before the passage of Section 163, the “precise question at issue,” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, was not the meaning of “full State certification” as used in NCLB. Rather, the “precise question at issue” was the difference between the meaning of “has obtained” full State certification in the statute, 20 U.S.C. § 7801(23), and the meaning of “demonstrates satisfactory progress toward” full State certification in the regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a)(2)(ii). The difference between having obtained something and merely making satisfactory progress toward obtaining it is patent. The panel majority concluded, before the passage of Section 163, that the Secretary’s regulation impermissibly expanded the definition of “highly qualified teacher” contained in 20 U.S.C. § 7801(23) by including in that definition an alternative-route teacher who merely “demonstrates satisfactory progress toward” the requisite “full State certification.” Renee II, 623 F.3d at 796. [4] We therefore held, before the passage of Section 163, that § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) was invalid because it was inconsistent with the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. We emphasized that our holding was based on the difference between the meaning of “has obtained” in 20 U.S.C. § 7801(23) and the meaning of “demonstrates satisfactory progress toward” in § 200.56(a)(2)(ii).
The Secretary had not argued in the district court that Appellants lacked standing under Article III. He made that 5026 RENEE v. DUNCAN argument for the first time on appeal. Lack of Article III standing is a non-waivable jurisdictional defect that may be raised at any time, even on appeal after failing to raise it in the district court. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003). We concluded that Appellants had Article III standing. “[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of [Article III] standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); see also DBSI/TRI IV Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 465 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2006). “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ ” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. “Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” such that the injury is fairly traceable to the action challenged. Id. “Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 561 (internal quotations omitted). We considered these three requirements in turn.
Appellants are California public school students, their parents, and two non-profit organizations, Californians for Justice (“CFJ”) and California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“California ACORN”). The named students, along with student members of the two organizations, attend California public schools at which significant numbers of intern credential holders serve as teachers. As a result, these students are being taught by interns, have been taught by interns, or are substantially likely to be taught by interns. Appellants presented evidence in the district court that a disproportionate number of interns teach in California public schools that serve minority and low-income students. For example, forty-one percent of interns in California teach in RENEE v. DUNCAN 5027 the twenty-five percent of schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. In contrast, two percent of interns in California teach in the ten percent of schools with the lowest concentration of minority students. Interns are similarly concentrated in schools serving low-income communities, with sixty-two percent of interns teaching in the poorest half of California’s schools. This disproportionate distribution of interns, Appellants contended, results in a poorer quality education than Appellants would otherwise have received. We concluded that Appellants established injury in fact. In adopting NCLB, Congress decided, before the passage of Section 163, that teachers with “full State certification” were, in the aggregate, better teachers than those without such certification. We recognized that it is debatable whether Congress was correct in deciding that teachers with “full State certification” are better than teachers without such certification. This is particularly debatable if intern teachers enrolled in programs such as Teach for America do not have “full State certification.” But that was not for us to decide. We were bound to accept Congress’ pre-Section 163 determination that students taught by a disproportionate number of teachers without “full State certification” had been injured in fact.
We also concluded that there was a causal connection between the promulgation of the federal regulation challenged in this case and the later promulgation of the California regulations. The parties do not dispute that the California regulations were adopted as a result of the challenged federal regulation. To the degree that the federal regulation, and the mimicking California regulations, had the effect of permitting California and its school districts to ignore the fact that a disproportionate number of interns teach in schools in minority and low-income areas, there was a causal connection between the challenged regulation and the injury of which Appellants complain. 5028 RENEE v. DUNCAN
Finally, we concluded that Appellants’ injury was likely to be redressed by invalidation of the federal regulation. “Plaintiffs need not demonstrate that there is a ‘guarantee’ that their injuries will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Graham v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 149 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir. 1998). The plaintiffs’ burden is “relatively modest.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 171 (1997). Plaintiffs need only show that there would be a “change in a legal status,” and that a “practical consequence of that change would amount to a significant increase in the likelihood that the plaintiff would obtain relief that directly redresses the injury suffered.” Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 464 (2002). If an agency has misinterpreted the law, there is Article III standing “even though the agency . . . might later, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, reach the same result for a different reason.” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). The challenged federal regulation permits a state to treat intern teachers as “highly qualified” under NCLB even if those teachers are not fully certified under state law but are only “demonstrat[ing] satisfactory progress toward full certification.” The 2004 California regulations, mimicking the federal regulation, provide that teachers with “full State certification” under California law, as well as teachers who are currently enrolled in an intern program, are “highly qualified” within the meaning of NCLB. But the California regulations do not change the definition of “full State certification” under California law. Unless intern teachers have “full State certification” under some California law other than these regulations, such teachers were not “highly qualified” for purposes of NCLB, before the passage of Section 163, in the absence of the challenged federal regulation. In other words, California was out of compliance with NCLB if the federal regulation was invalid. The “change in legal status” that would result from the invalidation of the federal regulation significantly increased the likelihood that California would RENEE v. DUNCAN 5029 take steps to increase the number of teachers with “preliminary” and “clear” credentials in minority and low-income schools in order to comply with NCLB. The Secretary made two arguments against this conclusion. First, he argued that intern teachers had “full State certification” under California law. The Secretary made the somewhat surprising argument that because California is not a party to this suit we should not interpret California law ourselves, but rather should defer to the Secretary’s interpretation. As the Secretary surely knew, we routinely interpret California law in cases in which California is not a party. And while we defer to the Secretary’s interpretation of federal law under Chevron, we owe no deference to his interpretation of state law. It was reasonably clear that intern teachers did not have “full State certification” under California law. California’s Education Code distinguishes between holders of intern credentials and holders of preliminary and clear credentials in several ways. For example, § 44300(a)(1)(A) of the Education Code, which governs the hiring of permit holders, requires school districts to document recruitment efforts to hire “certificated teachers, including teacher candidates pursuing full certification through internship, district internship, or other alternative routes.” (Emphasis added.) That is, while interns are “certificated teachers,” they are merely “pursuing full certification.” Cal. Educ. Code § 44300(a)(1)(A); see also id. § 44225.7(a) (indicating that interns are not “fully prepared” teachers); Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Ass’n v. Bakersfield City Sch. Dist., 145 Cal. App. 4th 1260, 1277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (referring to credentials other than clear and preliminary as less than “regular”). The 2004 mimicking California regulations similarly distinguish between intern teachers and fully credentialed teachers. Under the California regulation applicable to middle and secondary schools, a teacher is deemed to “meet the requirements 5030 RENEE v. DUNCAN of NCLB” under two circumstances. One is that the teacher be “currently enrolled in an approved intern program.” The other is that the teacher have “a full credential.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 6110(2). Thus, as recently as 2004, California confirmed that intern credential holders are not fully certified under the current state credentialing system. Second, the Secretary argued that if the federal regulation is held invalid, California would almost certainly change its credentialing laws to provide that the holder of an intern credential is fully certified under California law. We disagreed. As just discussed, California’s Education Code indicates that holders of “preliminary” and “clear” credentials have “full certification” under state law, but that interns do not. After the passage of NCLB, California made no attempt to change its law to provide that teachers with intern credentials are fully credentialed under California law. Both before and after the promulgation of the challenged federal regulation, California law characterized intern teachers as not having full credentials. The Secretary pointed to no evidence indicating that, in the event the federal regulation were held invalid, California would change its credentialing law in a manner it had thus far not seen fit to do. Nor, indeed, has the Secretary attempted to argue that, in the wake of our opinion in Renee II, California has changed its credentialing law. Finally, our dissenting colleague made an argument not made by the Secretary. He argued that even if the federal regulation were struck down, and even if intern teachers in California were not “highly qualified” within the meaning of NCLB, there is nothing in NCLB that empowers the Secretary to withhold funds as a means of compelling a state to adopt a specific system of teacher credentialing. In our view, that was not the issue. The issue, rather, was whether the Secretary has the authority to withhold funds when a State fails to take steps to ensure that students in minority and low-income schools are not taught disproportionately by teachers without RENEE v. DUNCAN 5031 “full State certification” as the state defined “full certification.” It is undisputed that NCLB gives the State great flexibility in deciding which teachers are fully certified under state law, and that the Secretary cannot compel a State to adopt any specific credentialing system. That is, a state is free to define “full certification” in almost any way it chooses. But having defined full certification under state law, a state is required to take steps to ensure that fully certified teachers are proportionately represented in the teaching staffs of minority and low-income schools. It is undisputed that the Secretary has authority to withhold funds if a state does not take steps to comply with NCLB. See 20 U.S.C. § 1234c (Secretary may withhold funds if a recipient “is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law applicable to such funds”); id. § 6311(b)(8)(C), (g)(2) (Secretary may withhold funds if the State has not submitted a plan describing “specific steps the State educational agency will take to ensure that both schoolwide programs and targeted assistance schools provide instruction by highly qualified instructional staff”). The Secretary is not required to withhold funds if a state fails to take steps to comply with NCLB. The statute provides that he “may” do so rather than that he “must” do so. Id. §§ 1234c, 6311(g)(2). But the possibility of the Secretary withholding funds was an obvious incentive for a State to comply with NCLB. Further, even if the Secretary did not withhold funds, we were unwilling to assume that California is a scofflaw state. That is, we were unwilling to assume that California would refuse to take steps to come into compliance with NCLB, as it existed prior to the passage of Section 163, in the absence of such compulsion.