Briefs Filed on Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging NCLB

As expected, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), has filed a motion to dismiss the Pontiac School District v. Spellings lawsuit, which challenges the federal No Child Left Behind Act as an unfunded mandate. On August 5, plaintiffs filed a brief opposing this motion, and ED will soon submit a reply brief to the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where the case is being heard.

The lawsuit was filed by the National Education Association (NEA) along with several of its affiliated associations and a number of school districts. The suit claims that, in violation of a provision within NCLB, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is requiring states and school districts to spend their own program funds to fulfill NCLB requirements. ED is asking the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the suit and have misinterpreted the “unfunded mandates” section of NCLB in their complaint.

Legal Standing

ED claims in its brief that the Association plaintiffs, NEA and its affiliates, and the District plaintiffs, the school districts, lack standing to bring the suit. ED argues that the Association plaintiffs are not advocating their own rights, but the rights of third-party states and school districts. ED also charges that these plaintiffs have not been sufficiently specific about the injuries alleged and their connection to NCLB, nor shown that the requested redress of grievances would remedy the injurious situation. This argument is based on ED's claim that “students will have the same academic skills the day after this Court's ruling as they had the day before the ruling,” an argument that circumvents, rather than addresses, the alleged damage done to the education programs available to students when limited funds must be redirected to federal requirements.

ED also states that the District plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Pontiac School District, do not have standing because most of the costs that the districts cite as unfunded NCLB mandates are in fact paid for by the state, rendering these districts a third party to any injury that might have been established.

In their brief to the court, plaintiffs counter ED's arguments with examples of direct harm to the NEA associations and their members by alleged unfunded NCLB mandates and resulting diversion of funds and point to ways in which the relief sought could alleviate this harm. Plaintiffs also argue that the District plaintiffs are incurring costs themselves, aside from additional costs incurred by their states. Plaintiffs also volunteer that, if the court decides they need to state their claims with more specificity, they will amend their complaint accordingly.

The “Unfunded Mandates Provision”

ED alleges that the interpretation of NCLB's “unfunded mandates provision” put forth by the plaintiffs in their complaint misconstrues the purpose of the section, which says:

Nothing in [the NCLB] shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under [the NCLB].

ED argues that “Section 7907(a) is…a general provision designed to protect against expansive construction of ambiguous provisions in NCLB, or the addition of requirements not in the statute, by the federal officials charged with implementing these provisions.” In other words, while the plaintiffs understand the requirements of NCLB as mandates for which they have not been provided sufficient funds, ED claims that the requirements of NCLB are conditions that must be met in order to receive federal funds under the Act.

ED also claims that plaintiffs' interpretation of this section directly conflicts with the Act's primary goal, which is the establishment of a system of accountability, by giving states and districts an easy way to avoid that accountability.

Plaintiffs argue in their brief that the “plain meaning” of this provision as well as its legislative history support their interpretation over that of ED. Plaintiffs also contend that adequate funding is consistent with NCLB's primary goal, and, finally, they argue that even if the provision is ambiguous, ED's motion must be denied, based on the “clear statement rule” and legal precedents in similar cases dealing with ambiguous provisions of federal statutes.

We will continue to report on this lawsuit, which is expected to take several years to reach final resolution.

Prepared August 15, 2005