« Other NCLB news | Main | Justice O'Connor to take a bow »
July 1, 2005
Feds answer NEA's NCLB lawsuitFederal lawyers have filed their answer to the lawsuit led by the National Education Association (NEA) over NCLB's unfunded mandates language. By way of background, here's what BoardBuzz said when that lawsuit was filed.
The feds' answer is in the form of a motion to dismiss the case, standard operating procedure for defense litigators. Here's the summary of the motion from NSBA's Legal Clips. Basically, they are trying to get the case thrown out by arguing that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue, which you'll recall was how the Pledge of Allegiance case wound up last year. But they also have provided something crucial that's been missing from the debate over NCLB funding: Another plausible explanation for what the NCLB's unfunded mandate provision means.
It's a question of statutory interpretation. The language says, "Nothing in this Act 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 Act." The NEA suit argues that this plainly means the federal government has to pay for the new things schools have to do to comply with NCLB.
Until now, the counter-argument has been that "states and schools don't have to take the money," so NCLB imposes no "mandates." Remember this on that GAO report? The problem with this line, at least as voiced so far, has been that to accept it, you'd have to accept that Congress really meant nothing more by including the specific language in the act. First, courts have been clear that you can't interpret statutory language as superfluous, and second, it's a curious argument for Republicans to make about the meaninglessness of language they originated when Bill Clinton was president.
The government's motion still repeats similar points, but it shores them up with an array of stronger arguments, including many that cast doubt on the NEA interpretation. Some of the arguments are more convincing than others, but overall the motion is a strong one. In addition to its legal arguments, it's an impressive rhetorical defense of NCLB and broadside against NCLB naysayers. There are some real zingers in there. For a motion that criticizes NEA for misusing the courts in order to make a political statement, it shows the federales can give as good as they get.
Prognosis? The plaintiffs will probably add to their initial pleading to address some of the points in the government's motion. The standard for dismissing a case is pretty high: The court has to err on the side of the plaintiffs as to all the factual allegations. On the other hand, if the court is looking for a way to avoid having to wade into this whole mess, which is quite possible, it's been provided a set of options to consider.
Posted July 1, 2005 12:00 AM
BoardBuzz Feed
