Miscellaneous Relief, State of Washington v. DeVos, No. 2:20-cv-01119 (W.D. Wash.), Doc. 55 (August 26, 2020)

Summary

Defendants' Motion for Clarification Regarding Scope of Preliminary Injunction in State of Washington v. Betsy DeVos, No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR, filed August 26, 2020. Defendants say the Court on August 21, 2020 enjoined them from implementing or enforcing the Guidance of April 30, 2020 and the Interim Final Rule issued July 1, 2020, and that they understand the Order to enjoin application of the rule as to the State of Washington. They say the State's press release reads the order as nationwide. Defendants argue that relief should be tailored to the plaintiff's injury, that the record shows no harm beyond Washington's borders, and that the State made no showing of standing for nationwide relief. William K. Lane III signs for Defendants.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Miscellaneous Relief, State of Washington v. DeVos, No. 2:20-cv-01119 (W.D. Wash.), Doc. 55 (August 26, 2020).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/miscellaneous-relief-state-of-washington-v-devos-no-2-20-cv-01119-w-d-754402428f/, SHA-256 36e0536553cc310058f0f390e8063a11969995655743920be485183aaa662d83.

Full text

Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 55 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 5

ETHAN P. DAVIS
1
Acting Assistant Attorney General
2 DAVID M. MORRELL
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
3 JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
4
WILLIAM K. LANE III
5 Counsel

6 Attorneys for Defendants

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
10
11 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR
v.
12
BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
13 Secretary of the United States Department of CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE
14 Education; and the UNITED STATES OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
19
REGARDING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
20
On Friday, August 21, 2020, this Court granted the State’s request to enjoin preliminarily
21
Defendants from “implementing or enforcing the provisions in the Guidance of April 30, 2020 or
22
23 the Interim Final Rule issued July 1, 2020.” Order at 21, Dkt. 54 (8-21-20). At this preliminary

24 stage, and consistent with principles generally applicable to injunctions, Defendants understand
25
the Court’s Order to enjoin application of the Interim Final Rule (“IFR”) vis-à-vis the Plaintiff,
26
the State of Washington.
27
28 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 55 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 5

This weekend Defendants learned from a press release issued by the Attorney General for
1
2 the State that the State interprets the Court’s order to impose a nationwide injunction to halt

3 application of the IFR. See AG Ferguson: Judge blocks DeVos attempt to deprive Washington
4
public schools of emergency funds (Aug. 21, 2020), https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-
5
releases/ag-ferguson-judge-blocks-devos-attempt-deprive-washington-public-schools (last
6
7 visited Aug. 26, 2020) (“Judge Barbara J. Rothstein’s ruling blocks the Department of

8 Education’s rule nationwide.”). Because the parties appear to have contrary interpretations of
9 the Court’s Order, Defendants respectfully seek clarification that the Court preliminarily
10
enjoined application of the IFR to the Plaintiff here. 1
11
ARGUMENT
12
13 A court’s “constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate the individual rights of the

14 people appearing before it,” and “[a] plaintiff’s remedy” accordingly “must be tailored to redress
15 the plaintiff’s particular injury.” Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1930, 1934 (2018) (citation
16
omitted); cf. DHS v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (Mem) (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)
17
(observing that injunctions that order the government to act or not act regarding non-parties
18
19 “raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III”). The

20 Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the longstanding principle that “an injunction ‘should be no more
21
burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs before the
22
court.’” City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Barr, 965 F.3d 753, 765 (2020) (quoting L.A. Haven
23
Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d 644, 664 (9th Cir. 2011)). In City & County of San
24
25 Francisco, the court held that a nationwide injunction that was unnecessary to provide complete
26
27 1 Defendants’ counsel conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, by email dated August 26, 2020.
Plaintiff’s counsel indicated their opposition to this motion to the extent it contends that the
28 Court’s Order of August 21, 2020, contained a geographic limitation.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR

2
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 55 Filed 08/26/20 Page 3 of 5

relief to the plaintiffs was overbroad and an abuse of discretion. 965 F.3d at 765. The court
1
2 observed that the plaintiffs, a state and a municipality, do not operate or suffer harm outside their

3 neat geographic boundaries, and thus “the geographical scope of an injunction can be neatly
4
drawn to provide no more or less relief than what is necessary to redress [p]laintiffs’ injuries.”
5
Id. at 766; see also Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 443, 470 (2009) (vacating grant of statewide relief
6
7 in class action where the only violation claimed related to a single school district).

8 So too here. Although the Court enjoined Defendants from “implementing or enforcing
9 the provisions in the Guidance of April 30, 2020 or the Interim Final Rule issued July 1, 2020,”
10
Order 21, it granted the preliminary injunction on the basis that the State had established
11
irreparable harm to itself, and only to itself, as well as a likelihood of success on the merits. 2 See
12
13 Order 9 (The “heart” of the State’s irreparable harm argument “is that Washington[’s] public

14 schools, and in particular [the State’s poorest] public school students, are irreparably harmed by
15 the [IFR’s] diversion of CARES Act funding to private schools.”). Nor did Plaintiff present any
16
evidence in the record about harm beyond Washington’s borders, and the Court was not asked to
17
make—as it must to justify a nationwide injunction—a specific finding that the State would
18
19 “continue to suffer [its] alleged injuries if [the government] were enjoined from enforcing the

20 [challenged IFR] only in [Washington].” City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 965 F.3d at 765.
21
Instead, the focus of the State’s claims, and the Court’s discussion of such allegations, were
22
(appropriately) on the alleged injuries within the State of Washington. As in City & County of
23
San Francisco, the State’s neat geographic boundaries preclude any need for a broader
24
25
2 Currently, three other cases challenging this IFR are pending in different district courts around
26
the country. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al., v. DeVos,
27 et al., 1:20-cv-01996 (D.D.C.); Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. v. DeVos, et al.,
No. 1:20-cv-02310 (D.Md.); State of Michigan, et al., v. DeVos, et al., No. 3:20-cv-04478-JD
28 (N.D.Cal.). The plaintiffs are individuals and advocacy groups, as well as a collection of states.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR

3
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 55 Filed 08/26/20 Page 4 of 5

injunction. The State’s challenge here concerns only the apportionment of funds between public
1
2 and private schools at a local level, and so its alleged injuries will be completely redressed if

3 Defendants do not enforce the IFR within the State of Washington.
4
The State’s interpretation of the injunction as having nationwide effect would raise an
5
additional concern. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, a plaintiff must
6
7 “demonstrate standing for each . . . form of relief that is sought.” Town of Chester v. Laroe

8 Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017) (citation omitted); see also Gill v. Whitford, 138
9 S. Ct. 1916, 1930, 1933 (2018) (“The Court’s constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate the
10
individual rights of the people appearing before it.”); cf. DHS v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (Mem)
11
(2020) (Gorsurch, J., concurring) (observing that injunctions that order the government to act or
12
13 not act regarding non-parties “raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers

14 under Article III”). Here, Plaintiff made no showing of standing sufficient to seek nationwide
15 relief.
16
CONCLUSION
17
For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court clarify that its August
18
19 21, 2020 Order provides preliminary relief from the IFR to the State of Washington, exclusively.

20 DATED: August 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
21 ETHAN P. DAVIS
Acting Assistant Attorney General
22
23 DAVID M. MORRELL
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
24
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
25
Director, Federal Programs Branch
26
/s/ William K. Lane III
27 WILLIAM K. LANE III
28 (D.C. Bar #1034955)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR

4
Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 55 Filed 08/26/20 Page 5 of 5

Counsel, Civil Division
1
U.S. Department of Justice
2 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
3 (202) 305-7920
william.lane2@usdoj.gov
4
Attorneys for Defendants
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR

File and source

File: 55-miscellaneous-relief.pdf
Size: 59,858 bytes
SHA-256: 36e0536553cc310058f0f390e8063a11969995655743920be485183aaa662d83
Our copy: 55-miscellaneous-relief.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com