110 F. Supp. 3d 176
D.D.C.2015Background
- Association challenges 2014 gainful employment regulations for for-profit and vocational schools under the Higher Education Act.
- Regulations use two debt-to-earnings metrics to determine program eligibility for Title IV funds.
- Plaintiff argues the metrics exceed statutory authority or are arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- Department contends the statute is ambiguous and the metrics are a reasonable implementation.
- Court reviews final agency action under Chevron and the APA, focusing on statutory interpretation and reasoned decisionmaking.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment present whether the debt-to-earnings test and disclosures are valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gainful employment is ambiguous under the statute. | APSCU argues it unambiguously means any paying job. | Department says multiple meanings exist; test reasonable under ambiguity. | Statutory term is ambiguous; Department's test reasonable. |
| Whether the debt-to-earnings test is arbitrary or capricious under the APA. | Test uses outside factors and demographics to measure outcomes. | Regulation explains factors and mitigates externalities; rational balance. | Debt-to-earnings test survives APA scrutiny. |
| Whether disclosure, reporting, and certification requirements exceed statutory authority or are arbitrary. | Regulations lack statutory basis and burden speech/flexibility. | Authorities and analyses support disclosure/ reporting as reasonable. | Disclosure, reporting, and certification requirements survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (ambiguous statutes permit reasonable agency interpretations)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requiring rational explanation)
- New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (context matters in interpreting statutory ambiguity)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency discretion in interpreting ambiguous terms)
- American Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (evaluation of agency’s evidence and decisionmaking)