On January 25, 2018, SurvJustice, Equal Rights Advocates, and Victim Rights Law Center filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These three nonprofit organizations sued the U.S. Department of Education under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by Democracy Forward, the National Center for Youth Law, and the National Women’s Law Center, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Department of Education’s decision to rescind sexual violence guidance documents issued in 2011 and 2014 created educational access disparities on the basis of sex and hampered the plaintiffs' ability to do their jobs. The complaint argued that the new policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It further argued that the decision had been made without the proper procedures, in violation of the APA.
On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, including several new factual allegations regarding accusations of sexual assault against top government officials and adverse changes to universities’ policies as a result of the Title IX guidance. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and that the plaintiffs failed to plead that the Department of Justice had a discriminatory purpose on May 2, 2018.
On August 31, 2018, non-profit organizations Women’s and Children’s Advocacy Project, Equal Means Equal, National Coalition Against Violent Athletes, Allies Reaching for Equality, Women Matter, and We are Women filed a motion for leave to intervene as plaintiffs. These organizations argued that the parties and court did not address the issues raised in the organizations’ amicus curiae briefs as the plaintiffs did not amend the complaint to argue in favor of the right to equal treatment.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the May 2, 2018 motion to dismiss on October 1, 2018 because the allegations were insufficient to show standing to bring an equal protection claim; the 2017 Guidance was not a final agency action for purposes of an APA claim; and the allegations did not plausibly suggest that the defendants acted outside their authority for the ultra vires claim. 2018 WL 4770741. The first and third claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, while the APA claim was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2018 and the organizations refiled a motion for leave to intervene as plaintiffs on November 20, 2018. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on December 14, 2018.
On February 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the APA claim.
On March 29, 2019, Judge Corley denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing but granted their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' equal protection and ultra vires claims. 2019 WL 143141. On that same day, Judge Scott granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, finding that a recent Ninth Circuit decision warranted reconsidering the plaintiffs' APA claim. 2019 WL 1434144. Finally, Judge Corley denied the motion to intervene, finding that the motion was untimely, that the intervenors failed to establish Article III standing, and that the intervenors' interests were adequately represented by the existing plaintiffs. 2019 WL 1427447.
On April 18, 2019, the plaintiffs submitted a Third Amended Complaint, removing the ultra vires and equal protection claims and reinserting the APA claim.
The plaintiffs and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 1, 2019, Judge Corley denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion. 2019 WL 5684522. She agreed with the defendants' argument that the challenged agency action was not "final" for purposes of judicial review under the APA. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is pending.
Rebecca Strauss - 07/30/2018
Erica Becker - 03/14/2019
Hope Brinn - 05/15/2020
compress summary
