345 F. Supp. 3d 1127
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- The Department of Education's 2016 regulations (the "Disclosure Rule") would have required institutions offering distance or correspondence programs to provide public and individualized disclosures about state adverse actions and whether programs meet state licensure/certification requirements.
- The Disclosure Rule was scheduled to take effect July 1, 2018.
- In 2018 the Department issued a Delay Rule pushing the effective date to July 1, 2020, citing reconsideration and burdens on institutions.
- NEA, CTA, and three individual members (current or prospective online students) sued under the APA, alleging the Delay Rule was unlawful and deprived them of information required by the Disclosure Rule.
- The Department moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing no concrete injury, lack of traceability, and non-redressability; plaintiffs contended they suffered an informational injury and would use disclosures in enrollment/continuation decisions.
- The magistrate judge denied the motion to dismiss, holding plaintiffs pleaded prudential (zone of interests) and Article III standing (informational injury, causation, redressability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zone of interests | HEA protects students; disclosures further HEA purpose of assisting students | Plaintiffs fall outside statute's zone | Court: plaintiffs' interests are within HEA's zone; satisfy prudential test |
| Injury-in-fact (informational injury) | Deprivation of disclosures is a concrete, particularized informational injury | A regulation (not statute) or an unimplemented rule cannot create standing; harm speculative | Court: regulatory informational rights can create injury; delaying a rule that would have provided concrete benefits is an injury |
| Causation | Delay Rule directly prevented mandatory disclosures | Some disclosures may be voluntary or publicly available; Dept. not the actual cause | Court: injury fairly traceable to Delay Rule because it removed mandatory disclosure obligation |
| Redressability | Vacating Delay Rule would allow Disclosure Rule to go into effect and require disclosures | Agency discretion might still prevent remedy (citing other cases) | Court: vacatur would make Disclosure Rule effective without further agency discretion; injury redressable |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (failure to obtain statutorily required information can constitute concrete informational injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three constitutional standing requirements)
- Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (regulatory disclosures can give rise to informational injury)
- PETA v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (denial of agency information used in plaintiffs' activities can support standing)
- Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (intent to take particular action can support imminence element of injury)
- Wilderness Soc'y v. Rey, 622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing informational injury doctrine)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) (vacatur of agency action may effectuate remedy)