UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CJN Document 22-2 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF DELAWARE; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Civil Action No. 20-cv-01468-CJN

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELISABETH D. DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR 5 U.S.C. ? 705 STAY PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CJN Document 22-2 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 LEGAL STANDARD................................................................................................................3 FACTS AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................4 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................8 I. The effective date alone justifies a stay pending full judicial review. ...............................8 II. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their remaining claims. ..........................13

A. The Rule's grievance process exceeds agency authority and is arbitrary and capricious. .....................................................................................13 1. The Rule imposes unlawful requirements on K-12 schools. ....................14 2. The Rule imposes unreasonable live-hearing requirements on postsecondary schools........................................................................18 3. The Rule abandons the Department's longstanding policies without adequate explanation..................................................................21

B. The Rule impermissibly narrows Title IX...........................................................22 1. The Rule unlawfully places geographic restrictions on Title IX's protections that have no basis in the statute. ....................................23 2. The Rule improperly narrows what constitutes sexual harassment..............................................................................................25 3. The Rule unlawfully limits who can file a formal complaint................................................................................................ 30 4. The Rule exceeds the Department's authority by mandating that schools dismiss meritorious complaints............................................31

C. The Rule violates the procedural requirements of the APA. ................................32 1. Defendants' regulatory impact analyses are fatally flawed. .....................32 2. The final Rule is not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. ........................................................................................................35

III. The Rule will cause irreparable harm.............................................................................37 A. Implementing the Rule will place oppressive burdens on schools and students. ......................................................................................................38 B. Once implemented, the Rule will irreparably harm students by making it harder for schools to prevent, address, and remedy sexual harassment. .............................................................................................41

IV. The balance of the interests favor a stay or injunction. ...................................................45 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................45

ii

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CJN Document 22-2 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 58

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Am. Fed'n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Orgs. v. Chao, 298 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2004) ............................................................................................ 8

Am. Med. Ass'n v. Reno, 57 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................. 33

Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. F.C.C., 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 32

Am. Water Works Ass'n v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................. 36

Ass'n of Private Sector Colleges & Univs. v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 35

Bostock v. Clayton County, --- S.Ct. ---, 2020 WL 3146686 (Jun. 15, 2020) ....................................................................... 27

Bus. Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 33

*Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979)........................................................................................................ 4, 27, 28

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 584 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 36

Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................... 4

*DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of California, --S.Ct.--,2020 WL 3271746 (June 18, 2020) .....................................................passim

*Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999).......................................................................................................... passim

District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 20-119 (BAH), 2020 WL 1236657 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2020) ......................................... 3, 45

Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 20

iii

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CJN Document 22-2 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 58

Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001).................................................................................................................. 27

Feinerman v. Bernardi, 558 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2008) ............................................................................................ 38

Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (1992)................................................................................................................ 4, 28

*Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998)........................................................................................................... passim

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)............................................................................................................ 14, 15

Gresham v. Azar, 950 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 33

Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005)............................................................................................................ 15, 22

*Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 16, 21, 38

League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................... 45

Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)................................................................................................................ 5, 27

Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. EPA, 787 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 4

Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) .............................................................................................................. 34

*Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ......................................................................................... 16, 18, 21

Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 33

Nat'l Ass'n of Indep. Television Producers and Distribs. v. F.C.C., 502 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1974) ....................................................................................................... 8

Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Def., 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) ................................................................................................................ 25

iv

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CJN Document 22-2 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 58

Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 33

Petroleum Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................. 14

Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 4

Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... 20

Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................. 33

Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................. 17

*Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. EEOC, 530 F.3d 925 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ 20, 21

Walter O. Boswell Mem'l Hosp. v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 788 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................. 33

Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 24

Statutes 5 U.S.C. ? 553............................................................................................................................... 36 5 U.S.C. ? 705........................................................................................................................ passim 5 U.S.C. ? 706........................................................................................................................... 8, 36 20 U.S.C. ? 1092............................................................................................................................. 6 20 U.S.C. ? 1232g......................................................................................................................... 37 20 U.S.C. ? 1681.................................................................................................................... passim 20 U.S.C. ? 1682.................................................................................................................... passim

v

 ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download