School District of Pontiac v. Spellings

No. 05-2708 (6th Cir. March 31, 2006); Clearinghouse Number: 55909

Description

School Districts Appeal District Court Dismissal of No Child Left Behind Lawsuit Arguing Act Specifically States Neither School Districts Nor States Are Required Spend Own Funds To Comply With Act

Abstract

Plaintiffs'- school districts in Michigan, Texas, and Vermont and the National Education Association and its affiliates in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Vermont – filed suit in district court against the U.S. secretary of education. They alleged that secretary is violating the "unfounded mandates provision" of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a), by requiring states and school districts to comply fully with all of the Act’s mandates even though states and school districts do not receive sufficient federal funding to pay for such compliance. Plaintiffs assert that defendant thus violates the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. They seek an order declaring that states and school districts need not spend non-Act funds to comply with the Act’s mandates and that failure to comply is not grounds for defendant to withhold federal funds to which states and districts are otherwise entitled; they also seek to enjoin defendant from withholding Act funds due to any failure to comply with the Act’s mandates if such failure is attributable to a refusal to spend other funds to achieve compliance. Defendant moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion to dismiss holding that the Act plainly states that while federal officers or employees are prohibited from requiring school district or states to spend funds to comply with the Act, Congress itself may require such local funding as a condition of receiving federal funds. Plaintiffs appeal.

Additional Information

Docket Date
2006-03-31 06:00:00+00:00