Federal courts block Title VI certification requirement

On April 24, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the U.S. Department of Education’s (USDOE) efforts to enforce its interpretation of Title VI and its associated certification requirement. The NAACP filed suit against the USDOE on April 15 on behalf of its members, who are black students enrolled in educational institutions. On April 20, the NAACP filed a motion requesting the court to enjoin the USDOE for enforcing its February “Dear Colleague Letter” and certification requirement. In its ruling, the court stated that “the certification requirement threatens serious consequences for schools’ failure to comply with vaguely-defined prohibitions on DEI initiatives” and it subjects schools to a short timeline that exacerbates vagueness concerns. Thus, it enjoined the enforcement of the certification requirement.

Earlier on April 24, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire partially blocked the certification requirement in a separate lawsuit. Plaintiffs National Education Association (NEA), NEA’s New Hampshire affiliate, and the Center for Black Educator Development sought and was granted the injunction after it filed suit against USDOE on March 5. Per the order, the injunction applies nationwide to entities receiving federal funding that employ or contract with NEA, the Center for Black Educator Development, or their respective members. Accordingly, the injunction applies to entities that employ or contract with the Michigan Education Association (MEA), which is a state affiliate of the NEA.

As background, the USDOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” on Feb. 14, and, on April 3, required certification of legal obligations under Title VI and the recent United States Supreme Court case in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The deadline for certification was April 24. On April 10, the Michigan Department of Education, through State Superintendent Dr. Michael Rice, responded to the USDOE, asserting that the certification of legal obligations under Title VI is unnecessary, as the Michigan Department of Education has already faithfully implemented education programs in accordance with both state and federal law and will continue to do so. Several other SEAs have responded similarly, including the New York State Department of Education and the Washington State Department of Education.

In accordance with the Michigan Department of Education’s position, based on current law and litigation, and as communicated to our clients, it is our opinion that there is no legal basis for the USDOE’s request for SEAs and LEAs to submit the certification. Michigan schools are already required to operate in compliance with Title VI and have previously agreed to do so through, for example, their applications for federal grants.

We anticipate these various federal orders to be appealed, and we will continue to monitor for legal developments. As such, we further recommend awaiting a final ruling on this matter considering the recent developments in litigation.

In that regard, it is further noted that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland also issued an order today temporarily staying enforcement of the aforementioned USDOE’s Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague Letter” of Feb. 14, purportedly “reminding” Title VI funding recipients of their obligation to comply with existing civil rights law. The court’s order did not extend to staying the certification requirement, even though the court’s rationale would logically call for such a stay because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint did not actually challenge the certification requirement. It is expected that the plaintiffs will again amend their complaint to seek such injunctive relief to also apply to the certification requirement.

Although we do not believe that it is legally necessary, we understand that the matter inherently presents a political issue as well as a legal issue, and some educational entities and boards of education may opt to submit the certification, if not done so already, considering the circumstances of their district/educational entity and local community.

Please contact attorneys from Clark Hill’s Education Law practice should you have any questions.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.