2ND DISTRICT Court Denies Motion To Preliminarily Enjoin Implementation Of New Title X Regs
Judge Carl J. Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion for preliminary injunction made by the Attorneys General of Pennsylvania, sixteen other states, and D.C. to preliminarily enjoin the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX rules.
Feeling some deja vu? That’s because a federal judge in New York did the same thing on Sunday in a similar case brought by the Attorney General of New York State. With the new Title IX regulations set to take effect tomorrow, Judge Nichols’s ruling plays a critical role in ensuring students will be treated fairly in campus disciplinary proceedings going forward.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and D.C. filed their lawsuit to challenge the regulations.Among other things, the plaintiffs argued that the new regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” and filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
Judge Nichols cited Sunday’s New York decision multiple times in concluding that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the case — a key factor in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. In assessing whether the regulations are arbitrary and capricious, he stated that “the Court’s role is limited to confirming that the agency has fulfilled its duty to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”
In other words, the court isn’t supposed to decide whether agency rules are the best rules or even particularly good rules — just whether the Department of Education has put forth a justification for them that makes sense. FIRE is glad to see the court acknowledge that ED has done so.
thefire.org-Samantha Harris
