Order on Motion for Reconsideration, State of Washington v. DeVos, No. 2:20-cv-01119 (W.D. Wash.), Doc. 69 (December 9, 2020)

Summary

Order on the State of Washington's Motion to Reconsider the October 26, 2020, minute order, in State of Washington v. Betsy DeVos and the United States Department of Education, Case No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR, Doc. 69, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, filed December 9, 2020. The State's motion (Dkt. No. 66) asks the Court to reopen the matter, convert its previous preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction, and reclose the matter. The Court states that the Department represents it has no intention of imposing the Interim Final Rule's conditions. It denies the motion because the State has shown no likelihood that the Department will continue to enforce the Rule, and the State may seek to reopen if the Department attempts to enforce it.

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

Full text

               Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 69 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 2




 1

 2

 3

 4
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
 5                            WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
                                        AT SEATTLE
 6

 7                                               )
     STATE OF WASHINGTON                         )
 8                                               )        CASE NO. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR
                           Plaintiff,            )
 9                                               )        ORDER ON PLAINTIFF STATE OF
                    v.                           )        WASHINGTON’S MOTION TO
10                                               )        RECONSIDER THE OCTOBER 26,
     BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as )           2020 MINUTE ORDER AND TO ENTER
11   Secretary of the United States Department of)        JUDGMENT FOR WASHINGTON
     Education; and the UNITED STATES            )
12   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a                  )
13   federal agency                              )
                                                 )
14                         Defendants.           )

15
            Before the Court is the State of Washington’s Motion for Reconsideration, which asks the
16

17   Court to reopen this matter, convert its previous preliminary injunction into a permanent

18   injunction, and then reclose the matter. See Pl. State of Wash.’s Mot. to Recons. the Oct. 26, 2020

19   Min. Order and to Enter J. for Wash., Dkt. No. 66. On August 21, 2020, this Court granted the
20
     State the aforementioned preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendant the Department of
21
     Education from enforcing the Interim Final Rule, which purported to interpret provisions of the
22
     CARES Act regarding distribution of emergency relief funding between public and private
23
     elementary and secondary schools. Order Granting Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Dkt. No. 54 (“Prelim.
24

25
                                                     1
                Case 2:20-cv-01119-BJR Document 69 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 2




     Inj. Order”).1 On September 4, 2020, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia granted
 1
     summary judgment to a different set of plaintiffs in a related case and permanently set aside the
 2

 3   Interim Final Rule, preventing the Department from enforcing it. Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of

 4   Colored People v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-1996, 2020 WL 5291406 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020). When the
 5   Department chose not to appeal this decision, this Court in a minute order held that the decision in
 6
     NAACP had “effectively enjoined the rule at issue in the case before this Court” and dismissed the
 7
     action. Min. Order of Oct. 26, 2020, Dkt. No. 65.
 8
             The State claims it requires a permanent injunction to guard against the possibility that the
 9

10   Department may attempt to enforce the Interim Final Rule, notwithstanding the fact that the Rule

11   has been vacated. The Department represents that it has no intention of imposing the Interim Final

12   Rule’s conditions, recognizing that the Rule is no longer enforceable. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot.
13   to Recons., Dkt. No. 68. The Court hereby DENIES the State’s Motion as it has shown no
14
     likelihood that the Department will continue to enforce the Interim Final Rule. Should the
15
     Department renege on this commitment, and attempt to enforce the now-defunct Rule, the State
16
     may seek to reopen this matter at that time.
17

18           SO ORDERED.

19           DATED this 9th day of December, 2020.

20
                                                                   _______________________________
21
                                                                   BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
22                                                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24
     1
      The Court recounted the underlying facts of this case in its previous Order. See Prelim. Inj. Order at 2–8. The
25   Court here adopts all abbreviations and defined terms in that Order.
                                                              2


File and source

File

69-order-on-motion-for-reconsideration.pdf

Size

233,876 bytes

SHA-256

ed13d12ebe4bcf244bb2d40ea372f52bbe5ddabe06c98b39dc0c03fd55b7053f

Our copy

69-order-on-motion-for-reconsideration.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com