Judge Dabney Friedrich, U.S. District JudgeFor the District of Columbia (and appointed through Trump) this week has become the third federal ruling to thwart Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ plan to direct more CARES budgets to personal schools.all three, not only enforcing a court order, but issuing an abstract judgment against the clerk.
The disorders were as follows: Congress set aside CARES’ aid budget for distribution among public schools and personal schools based on the number of academics from low-income families.DeVos first issued a directive, and then a decision, that the budget deserved to be transferred to personal schools based on general tuition than low-income tuition.This would have diverted CARES’ budget from public schools to personal schools, a long-standing purpose of DeVos.
Members of Congress, adding Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, disagreed with DeVosian’s interpretation of the law.This was followed by multiple lawsuits across states, parents and other organizations.Decisions have been in progress for two weeks.
The department’s argument is that the law is “ambiguous” and that the department’s rule was issued to “clarify” the law.Federal judges are not convinced.
In Washington state, Judge Barbara Rothstein said the law “could hardly be less ambiguous” and called the department’s argument “generously expressed, an exaggeration.”He concluded that “the department’s intricate reading necessarily creates ambiguity to justify its resolution, thus thwarting Congress’ apparent intent.”The department, concluded by pointing to a court order, had no authority to rewrite the seemingly stated objective of Congress.
Then, in San Francisco, Judge James Donato also issued a court order, stating that the branch had used an “interpretive jiggery poker” to create ambiguity where there wasn’t, suggesting that it’s hard to believe how anyone can simply argue in a different way.path with an emotionless face.
Judge Friedrich down the same road. In his decision, he stated:
In some cases of legal interpretation, courts will have to give meaning to indistingcinct terms, contradictory provisions or “uninteresting wording”.This is not one of those cases.
As with previous judges, Friedrich spends some time explaining why a sentence like “in the same way” is ambiguous.Then, in his conclusion, he writes:
By enacting the education investment provisions of the CARES Act, Congress spoke to a transparent voiceArray.Unlike the Department’s provisional final rule, this means the opposite of what it says.
The whistleblowers in this case are the NAACP, as well as parents and school districts across the country.The decision that the department’s final rule is null and void will take effect at the national level, meaning that, in terms, a Court can be put in place to Betsy DeVos a full series of defeats with a parallel order of judicial derision.Better yet, it means that academics from low-income families across the country will now get the relief Congress had planned.for them.
I spent 39 years as an English teacher in high school, seeing how new classroom reform policies.