As the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal have ably pointed out, the anti-charter resolution adopted this past weekend by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People represents an unfortunate commentary for inner city communities longing for better schools. Why put up the roadblocks? Why stifle innovation? Why limit the rights of parents to choose what’s best for their children? No compelling reason exists. To the contrary, over 40 states and the District of Columbia have endorsed charter schools through their state authorization laws. Stunting the progress of charters–as the resolution would do–represents a poor policy choice.
Apart from defending Title IX lawsuits in Texas, Nebraska, Illinois, and the District of Columbia based on its Dear Colleague Letters (transgender bathroom/locker room guidance and guidance announcing the preponderance of the evidence standard for campus sexual harassment and assault disciplinary proceedings), the U. S. Department of Education now is a defendant in a Title IV student aid-related lawsuit. As with the Title IX litigation, the Title IV-related suit (filed in Utah) by the Center for Excellence in Higher Education contends the Department failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)–that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to recognize the Center’s non-profit status for purposes of participation in Title IV federal student aid.
How these cases get resolved remains an open question, though at least two courts (TX and NC)) have given hints on how they view Title IX. What is clear is the requirements of the APA (notice and comment rulemaking and arbitrary and capricious provisions) have finally arrived center stage in Title IX and Title IV litigation.
On Sunday, August 21, 2016, a federal court in the northern district of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the Obama Administration’s highly controversial transgender bathroom/locker room guidance first-announced in the spring of this year. The court’s decision is here. Significantly, the decision stated the U.S. Department of Education failed to follow Notice and Comment rule-making procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, a major point of contention with many in the education community.
Yesterday, Oklahoma Wesleyan University joined pending litigation in the District of Columbia–now titled John Doe and Oklahoma Wesleyan University v. Catherine H. Lhamon, et al., 1:16-cv-01158-RC–challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s controversial Title IX Sexual Misconduct Guidance issued on April 4, 2011 in a Dear Colleague Letter. Plaintiffs contend the Department’s Office for Civil Rights violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow the Act’s Notice and Comment rule making requirements for the “preponderance of the evidence” standard announced in the Dear Colleague.
Yesterday (August 3), the Supreme Court voted 5-3 to stay the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in G. G. v. Gloucester County (VA) School Board, No. 15-2056, wherein the Court of Appeals ruled that under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 the school district must allow a transgender student to use the bathroom facilities of the student’s gender identity (in this case a female who identified as a male). The Supreme Court also stayed the trial court’s preliminary injunction issued upon remand.
The stays remain in effect until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination on a petition for certiorari likely to be filed by the district in coming weeks.
Meanwhile, in at least three jurisdictions the legality of the U.S. Department of Education’s related Title IX transgender guidance is under challenge in federal court–Students and Parents for Privacy, et al. v. United States Department of Education, et al., No. 1:16:cv-04945, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; State of Texas et al. v. United States Department of Education, et al., No. 7:16-cv-00054, Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division; State of Nebraska, et al. v. United States Department of Education, et al., No. 4:16-cv-03117, District of Nebraska.
On July 12, 2016, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4768, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016” by a vote of 240-171. Short in length, the legislation amends the Administrative Procedure Act to overturn the Chevron and Auer doctrines of judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. Reviewing courts would decide de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules made by agencies. More information can be found in House Report 114-622, here.
In practice, what the bill means is that some of the U.S. Department of Education’s recent, controversial interpretations (purported) of Title IX and its regulations would be scrutinized without the current requirement that the court give a nod, in effect, to the agency’s legal views.
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:00 AM, the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee will hear from education stakeholders about what they think about the proposed Title I regulations to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), published earlier today (July 11) in the Federal Register. Witnesses have not yet been announced, but stay tuned for an update.
UPDATED (July 13): Witnesses include Dr. Stephen Pruitt–Kentucky Commissioner of Education (Frankfort, KY), Dr. Linda-Darling Hammond–President and CEO at Learning Policy Institute (Palo Alto, CA), Dr. Gail Pletnick–Superintendent of Dysart Unified School District (Surprise, AZ), and Ms. Alison Harris Welcher–Director of School Leadership for Project LIFT (Charlotte, NC).
Though the controversial borrower defense to repayment proposed regulations will not be officially published until Thursday, June 16, 2016, a copy (530 pages) has been placed on public display at the Office of the Federal Register. Earlier today the U.S. Department of Education issued a press release announcing the regulations.
Voluminous comments can be expected from the higher education community on the impact of the newly-designated federal defenses, the allowance of group claims, the new financial responsibility triggers, and the limitations upon arbitration.
Earlier today North Carolina and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed dueling lawsuits against each other asking a federal judge to determine rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (prohibits employment discrimination), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibits sex discrimination), and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA).
The two complaints focus on a recently-enacted NC state law—the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (the “Act”) aka HB 2. That law provides privacy protections for, among others, state employees, by requiring public agencies to require multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities be designated for, and only used by, persons based on their biological sex.
In the first complaint, the state of North Carolina seeks a declaration that its state law on bathroom and changing facilities is compliant with Title VII and VAWA. In the second complaint, the United States (through the Department of Justice) contends the state of North Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, the University of North Carolina, and the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina have violated Title VII, Title IX, and VAWA–largely on the grounds the NC law does not allow one to use a public bathroom (or changing facility) in accord with one’s gender identity. Not discussed here is a third complaint also filed today by the NC President pro tempore of the Senate and NC House Speaker against the federal government.
Once the noise and chatter dissipate, the bottom line for Title VII (enacted in 1964) and Title IX (enacted in 1972) will be—what does the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of “sex” mean? Does “sex” mean biological sex or does it sweep more broadly to encompass gender identity, regardless of one’s anatomy? What does the legislative history reveal? Ultimately these will be questions for the Supreme Court.
In what appears to be the first decision to address the scope of authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the higher education context, last Thursday (April 21, 2016) a federal district court in Washington, DC held the CFPB had no authority to issue a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to the accreditor, Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). The court found troublesome the CID’s language stating the purpose of the CID was to “determine whether any entity . . . has engaged . . . in unlawful acts and practices in connection with accrediting for-profit colleges.” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, No. 15-1838, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, 53644 at 7 (D.D.C. April 21, 2016).
ACICS contended the CFPB had no statutory authority to conduct an investigation into the accreditation process of for-profit schools. CFPB argued because it had authority to investigate schools in relation to their lending and financial-advisory services, it also had authority to investigate whether any entity has engaged in any unlawful acts relating to the accreditation of those schools.
As the court stated, CFPB’s “post-hoc justification is a bridge too far!” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at 8-9. The accreditation process has no connection to a school’s private student lending practices, nor is the accreditor, ACICS, involved in the financial aid decisions of the schools it accredits. For these and other reasons, the court found CFPB lacked authority to investigate the process for accrediting for-profit schools, and the CID was denied.