State of Washington v. DeVos et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Reconsideration re 65 Order Dismissing Case. Should the Department renege on this commitment, and attempt to enforce the now-defunct Rule, the State may seek to reopen this matter at that time. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (LH)

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as )
Secretary of the United States Department of)
Education; and the UNITED STATES
)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a
)
federal agency
)
)
Defendants.
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON

CASE NO. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF STATE OF
WASHINGTON’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE OCTOBER 26,
2020 MINUTE ORDER AND TO ENTER
JUDGMENT FOR WASHINGTON

15
16

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

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
21
22
23
24

State the aforementioned preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendant the Department of
Education from enforcing the Interim Final Rule, which purported to interpret provisions of the
CARES Act regarding distribution of emergency relief funding between public and private
elementary and secondary schools. Order Granting Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Dkt. No. 54 (“Prelim.

25
1

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

1
2

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

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
7
8

NAACP had “effectively enjoined the rule at issue in the case before this Court” and dismissed the
action. Min. Order of Oct. 26, 2020, Dkt. No. 65.
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
15
16
17

likelihood that the Department will continue to enforce the Interim Final Rule. Should the
Department renege on this commitment, and attempt to enforce the now-defunct Rule, the State
may seek to reopen this matter at that time.

18

SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 9th day of December, 2020.

20
_______________________________
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25

1

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

2