Sonya Renee v. Arne Duncan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9504
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- NCLB requires highly qualified teachers; definition depended on state law and pre-163 regulation.
- Secretary promulgated 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a) defining ‘highly qualified’ with an alternative-route provision.
- Section 163 (Dec 2010) temporarily added § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) as compliant through 2012-13.
- California’s intern credential system mirrors the federal rule but interns are not fully certified.
- Appellants challenged § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) as not constituting ‘full State certification’ under NCLB, pre-163.
- District court granted summary judgment for Secretary; appeal followed with procedural history in Renee I/II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-163, is §200.56(a)(2)(ii) inconsistent with NCLB? | Renee: not truly ‘highly qualified’ without full certification. | Secretary: regulation permissible as interpretation. | Pre-163, §200.56(a)(2)(ii) invalid. |
| Did appellants have Article III standing? | Appellants injured by intern-teacher distribution. | No standing challenge raised by Secretary. | Appellants had standing. |
| Does Section 163 moot the appeal? | Section 163 moots the case by changing law. | Section 163 temporary; not moot. | Section 163 not moot the appeal. |
| Are post-163 reports to Congress enforceable judicially? | Reporting obligation provides legal redress. | Reports are informational, not enforceable. | Reporting requirement not enforceable relief. |
| Attorney’s fees under EAJA? | Failure to prevail on all grounds; fee eligibility unclear. | Secretary’s position substantially justified. | EAJA fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renee v. Duncan, 623 F.3d 787 (9th Cir.2010) (reversed district court on merits; pre-163 interpretation)
- Renee v. Duncan, 573 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.2009) (standing issue; pre-renewed opinion)
- Guerrero v. Clinton, 157 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.1998) (informational reporting not legal consequence)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (Sup. Ct.1983) (temporary relief not moot)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct.1997) (standing; civil action redress)
- Timms v. United States, 742 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.1984) (substantial justification standard for EAJA)
- Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (Sup. Ct.1998) (agency action review; standing/relief)