Federal Update: May 31, 2019 - Government Affairs (CA Dept ...



The Federal Update for May 31, 2019From:Michael Brustein, Julia Martin, Steven Spillan, Kelly Christiansen TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u News PAGEREF _Toc10197313 \h 1Supreme Court Will Not Take Up Challenge to Transgender Policy PAGEREF _Toc10197314 \h 1Lawmakers Say ED Obstructed Congressional Probe PAGEREF _Toc10197315 \h 2States Call for Veteran Student Debt Relief PAGEREF _Toc10197316 \h 3Biden Releases Plan for Education PAGEREF _Toc10197317 \h 3Congress will return to session from a weeklong recess on Monday, June 3rd. The House of Representatives will begin debating fiscal year 2020 spending legislation on June 12th. NewsSupreme Court Will Not Take Up Challenge to Transgender PolicyThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of certiorari this week in a case brought by students who object to their school district’s transgender-inclusive policies. The Boyertown Area School District has a policy of permitting students who are transgender to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. The policy was adopted at the beginning of the 2016-17 school year. But some students said they felt uncomfortable with the inclusive policy and argued that it violated their right to privacy and regulations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The regulations, issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) shortly after the law was passed in the 1970’s, say that schools may “separate toilet, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.” The litigants say that the district’s policy embarrasses them by forcing them to change clothes, shower, and use the restroom among students of the opposite sex. A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit rejected the challenge and declined to offer a preliminary injunction. While the 3rd Circuit’s final decision did not say that Title IX required an inclusive policy, the court did say the law did not preclude such a policy.This case gets to the question of whether gender identity can differ from an individual’s genetic or chromosomal sex. Title IX has been increasingly interpreted to include gender identity among its protections of sex, including by the Obama administration, which issued guidance to that effect (the guidance was later rescinded by ED and the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration). The Trump administration and others have argued that Congress intended Title IX to cover only physiological sex, not gender identity. The administration has also proposed in recent weeks that health care professionals be allowed to refuse treatment of transgender individuals and has barred the military from accepting transgender soldiers. State and federal courts have been divided on the boundaries of the protections afforded by Title IX, which will almost certainly be decided by the Supreme Court. However, it will have to be decided through another case – likely the Gavin Grimm lawsuit currently in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia.Resources:Mark Walsh, “Justices Decline to Take Up Challenge to District’s Pro-Transgender Policy,” Education Week: School Law Blog, May 28, 2019.Author: JCMLawmakers Say ED Obstructed Congressional ProbeIn a letter sent Thursday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said that the Trump administration had blocked a Congressional investigation into the removal of the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) acting Inspector General.Cummings said that ED officials had refused to turn over adequate documentation in response to a Congressional inquiry into a plan to remove the acting Inspector General (IG). The move came after the acting IG suggested the agency conduct a more thorough investigation before reinstating an accreditor of for-profit colleges. ED has reportedly turned over only seven pages of documents, most of which are “heavily redacted,” according to Cummings. After ED removed Sandra Bruce as acting IG in January of this year, she was replaced by Phil Rosenfelt, who at the time was also the agency’s general counsel. That move prompted concerns among Congressional Democrats about the potential conflict of interest that might result from an individual serving as both an organization’s attorney and its internal watchdog. Following backlash from Democrats, ED restored Bruce to the position. But Congressional Democrats asked for more information about the decision-making in this case, demanding answers by the end of March.But ED’s has pushed back against the investigation, saying in a letter from its new acting general counsel that “Congress’ oversight requests here implicate core Executive Branch interests and raise serious separation of powers concerns” because they deal with “deliberations regarding a presidential appointment.” ED argued that Congress’ “legislative need and authority over such deliberations” was unclear. The responses produced thus far, ED argues, “should fully satisfy” any of Congress’ “legitimate oversight concerns.”Cummings disagrees with this contention in his letter, and requests that ED produce requested documents by June 10th, and that the acting General Counsel appear for a “transcribed interview” before Oversight committee staff by June 13th. These demands and the refusal to produce additional documents seem to be setting up a larger conflict between ED and House Oversight which will likely continue through the summer. The Cummings letter is available here.Resources:Michael Stratford, “Trump administration accused of obstructing congressional probe of Education Department,” Politico, May 30, 2019.Author: JCMStates Call for Veteran Student Debt ReliefMore than fifty State and local officials sent a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos this month calling for the cancellation of student debt for disabled or otherwise unemployable veterans.? The attorneys general for 47 States, three territories, and the District of Columbia are requesting that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) create an automatic process for discharging student loans for veterans who are permanently and totally disabled or otherwise unemployable “to ensure that all eligible veterans can have their student loans forgiven.”? The only States and territories that did not sign onto the letter were Texas, Arizona, Alabama, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Current federal law allows certain disabled veterans to have their student loan debts eliminated, but very few eligible veterans are utilizing the process.? The attorneys general described ED’s process for discharging these loans as “inadequate.”? The letter argues that, “as a nation, we have a moral obligation to assist those who have put their lives on the line to defend us.” ?ED, while sympathetic to the underlying issue, claims there are other factors to consider.“While ‘automatic discharge’ may seem like a simple solution, there are long-term impacts we want all veterans to have the chance to consider before their loans are discharged,” ED spokesperson Liz Hill told Politico on Friday. “A student loan discharge could preclude the veteran from taking out additional federal student loans in the future for continuing education.”Student loan forgiveness continues to be a hot button issue, especially heading into the 2020 election cycle.? While definitive action from ED is unlikely, they seem willing to enter into the conversation of possible changes to the way loans are discharged.Resources:Rachel Frazin, “Attorneys General From 47 States Ask DeVos to Cancel Disabled Veterans’ Student Debt,” The Hill, May 25, 2019.Author: SASBiden Releases Plan for EducationFormer Vice President Joe Biden, candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, released a comprehensive proposal for education this week, which includes tripling the amount of funding appropriated for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Biden proposes using the increased Title I funding to provide pay raises to the nation’s teachers to offer them “competitive salaries” and also plans to make fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which teachers are eligible to enroll in and has been plagued with eligibility issues over the past couple of years. After addressing teacher salaries, Biden suggests using remaining increases in Title I funding to provide better supports for students, including through hiring additional guidance counselors, nurses, psychologists, and others, as well as to expand prekindergarten programs across the country. The Title I funding increase is also intended to help equalize funding between low- and higher-income schools and to increase racial diversity, such as boosting the number of minority teachers in schools. Outside of the Title I funding proposal, Biden plans to work with Congress to appropriate funding for school infrastructure; expand the Pell Grant to allow high school students to use that funding for dual enrollment; increase partnerships between schools, community colleges, and employers for the purposes of career and technical education; and “defeat the National Rifle Association – again – to make our schools safer” through a ban on assault weapons. Another Democratic Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, has proposed increasing teacher pay as well, and other candidates have started to formulate their own proposals for education as the campaign ramps up. Resources: Evie Blad, “Joe Biden’s Education Plan: Triple Title I to Boost Teacher Pay and Student Supports,” Education Week: Politics K-12, May 28, 2019.Author: KSCTo stay up-to-date on new regulations and guidance from federal agencies, register for one of Brustein & Manasevit’s upcoming webinars. Our newly-posted webinar schedule includes topics such as Perkins allowability, ESSA updates, grants management, procurement requirements, time and effort, and more. To view all upcoming webinar topics and to register, visit webinars.The Federal Update has been prepared to inform Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC’s legislative clients of recent events in federal education legislation and/or administrative law.? It is not intended as legal advice, should not serve as the basis for decision-making in specific situations, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and the reader.? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 2019Contributors: Julia Martin, Steven Spillan, Kelly Christiansen ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download