Case: Cato Institute v. U.S. Department of Education

5:22-cv-04055 | U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

Filed Date: Oct. 18, 2022

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In this lawsuit, filed October 18, 2022 in the U.S. District Court of Kansas, the Cato Institute, a nonprofit libertarian think tank challenged President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Plaintiff claims that the one-time student loan debt relief will weaken the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which Cato says nonprofits rely upon to incentivize potential employees. Cato argued that the loan forgiveness program violated the Appropriations Clause of Article I § 9 of the Constitutio…

In this lawsuit, filed October 18, 2022 in the U.S. District Court of Kansas, the Cato Institute, a nonprofit libertarian think tank challenged President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Plaintiff claims that the one-time student loan debt relief will weaken the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which Cato says nonprofits rely upon to incentivize potential employees. Cato argued that the loan forgiveness program violated the Appropriations Clause of Article I § 9 of the Constitution, which says that the Treasury may not spend money without an Act of Congress; Cato says there has been no such Act. Second, they argued that Congress violated the Vesting Clause of Article I § 1 (which gives Congress alone essential legislative functions) when it passed the HEROES (Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Solutions) Act and authorized the Secretary to do some legislation-like functions. Third and fourth, Cato said the Education Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding its statutory authority, and by acting arbitrarily and capriciously. Cato requested an injunction, attorney's fees and costs, and declaratory judgment.

On October 21, 2022 Cato motioned for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On November 7, the federal government motioned to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and for improper venue; it also requested the case be transferred to D.C. The motions were to be heard on November 17.

However, District Judge Toby Crouse decided to pause the litigation on November 14, 2022, given the Northern District of Texas's November 10 opinion in Brown v. U.S. Department of Education. In Brown, the Court granted summary judgment, declaring the loan forgiveness plan unlawful. The legal principle of res judicata dictates that final judgments on the merits which involve the same or similar parties, and the same claim, may not be relitigated; therefore the Court thought Brown may preclude this case. On November 16, Judge Crouse still requested additional briefing on Cato's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction and on the federal government's venue transfer request. The federal government is contesting the Judge's decision to pause the litigation because of Brown.

Summary Authors

Sophia Bucci (12/5/2022)

Related Cases

Brown v. U.S. Department of Education, Northern District of Texas (2022)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

5:22-cv-04055

Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Other Relief

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65586401/cato-institute-v-us-department-of-education/

Last updated Dec. 6, 2022, 4:47 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT with trial location of Topeka ( Filing fee $402, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-5893196.), filed by Cato Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/18/2022)

1 Declaration

View on RECAP

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

Clearinghouse
2

CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiff Cato Institute. (Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/18/2022)

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER
3

MOTION for attorney Sheng Li to appear pro hac vice (Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-5893270.) by Plaintiff Cato Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Sheng # 2 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/18/2022)

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER
4

MOTION for attorney Russ Ryan to appear pro hac vice (Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC-5893298.) by Plaintiff Cato Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Ryan Affidavit, # 2 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/18/2022)

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER

NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to District Judge Toby Crouse and Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jk)

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Designation of place of trial is missing. The filing party/attorney is directed to correct the deficiency immediately. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jk)

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER

Notice of Judge Assignment

Oct. 18, 2022

Oct. 18, 2022

PACER
5

ORDER denying without prejudice 3 & 4 Motions for Attorneys to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The affidavits submitted by Sheng Li and Russ Ryan do not comply with D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 in that the affidavits do not follow the District's prescribed form and do not contain all of the information required by that form, including whether the applicant is in good standing in all bars of which the applicant is a member. If counsel wishes to refile the motions, the Court directs counsel to the District's website and to "Forms" under the "Menu" tab. Under "Civil Forms," the District's prescribed Pro Hac Vice form is titled "Pro Hac Vice: Motion for Leave to Appear and Affidavit." If counsel refiles these motions, the pro hac vice fees previously paid as part of filing 3 and 4 shall be applied to any renewed motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/19/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jrh) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
6

DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Plaintiff Cato Institute - trial to be held in Kansas City. (Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

RECAP
7

MOTION for attorney Sheng Li to appear pro hac vice by Plaintiff Cato Institute (referred to Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz) (Attachments: # 1 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
8

MOTION for attorney Russ Ryan to appear pro hac vice by Plaintiff Cato Institute (referred to Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz) (Attachments: # 1 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice AND Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (issued to Attorney for service) (ada)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER

Summons Issued as to USA

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
9

ORDER regarding 7 Motion for Attorney Sheng Li to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The affidavit submitted by Sheng Li does not comply with D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 in that it is not notarized and/or does not contain a declaration that the affidavit is being signed under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as required by the Court's form. On or before October 25, 2022, the Court directs local counsel to file an amended affidavit that is notarized and/or contains a declaration that the affidavit is being signed under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/21/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(jrh) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
10

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Russell G. Ryan for Cato Institute pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/21/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (kas) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
11

AFFIDAVIT of Sheng Li re 7 MOTION for attorney Sheng Li to appear pro hac vice by Plaintiff Cato Institute (Attachments: # 1 Electronic Filing Form)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

1 Electronic Filing Form

View on PACER

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
12

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Sheng Li for Cato Institute pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 10/21/2022. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ca) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
13

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Cato Institute (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

RECAP
14

Summons Returned Executed -- served by Personal Service on 10/20/2022 Joseph R. Biden served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022; Miguel Cardona served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022; Richard Cordray served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022; U.S. Department of Education served on 10/20/2022, answer due 12/19/2022. Summons served on United States Attorney. (Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER

Order

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
15

NOTICE of Eighth Circuit Ruling by Cato Institute (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/24/2022)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

Oct. 24, 2022

Oct. 24, 2022

RECAP
16

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Cody Taylor Knapp on behalf of Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 10/25/2022)

Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

PACER
17

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response and in Reply, Joint MOTION for Order Adopting Proposed Briefing Schedule (Response deadline 11/8/2022) by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education. (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 10/25/2022)

Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

RECAP
18

NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. Telephone Conference set for 10/25/2022 at 04:30 PM CENTRAL by Telephone TC - CONFERENCE LINE 1-877-402-9753 ACCESS CODE 6722344 before District Judge Toby Crouse. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) (Entered: 10/25/2022)

Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

PACER
19

NOTICE of RESCHEDULED Telephone Conference: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING. Telephone Conference is now set for 10/26/2022 at 01:00 PM in Telephone TC - CONFERENCE LINE 1-877-402-9753 ACCESS CODE 6722344 before District Judge Toby Crouse. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) (Entered: 10/25/2022)

Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

PACER

Notice of Hearing

Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

PACER
20

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (16 pgs) held 10-26-22 before Judge T. Crouse. Court Reporter: Sherry Harris, 785-338-5354, sherry_harris@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript purchased by: C. Knapp. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/24/2023. (sh) (Entered: 10/26/2022)

Oct. 26, 2022

Oct. 26, 2022

PACER
21

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Toby Crouse: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 10/26/2022. The court denies without prejudice 17 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages/Motion for Order. Parties to contact chambers by email with proposed briefing schedule as discussed on record. (Court Reporter Sherry Harris.) (ta) (Entered: 10/28/2022)

Oct. 26, 2022

Oct. 26, 2022

RECAP

Motions No Longer Referred

Oct. 26, 2022

Oct. 26, 2022

PACER

MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 17 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response and in ReplyJoint MOTION for Order Adopting Proposed Briefing Schedule. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.

Oct. 26, 2022

Oct. 26, 2022

PACER
22

NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING as to 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2022 at 09:30 AM in KC Courtroom 643 before District Judge Toby Crouse. (ta) (Entered: 10/28/2022)

Oct. 28, 2022

Oct. 28, 2022

PACER
23

ORDER expediting briefing deadlines as to 13 Motion for TRO. Plaintiff Cato's supplemental brief to be filed by October 31, 2022; Government's response to be filed by November 7, 2022; Plaintiff's Reply to be filed by November 10, 2022. Hearing is set for November 17, 2022 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in Kansas City, Kansas, Courtroom 643. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 10/28/22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) (Entered: 10/28/2022)

Oct. 28, 2022

Oct. 28, 2022

PACER

Order on Motion for TRO

Oct. 28, 2022

Oct. 28, 2022

PACER

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Oct. 28, 2022

Oct. 28, 2022

PACER
24

Joint NOTICE of Related Litigation by Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 10/31/2022)

Oct. 31, 2022

Oct. 31, 2022

RECAP
25

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Supplemental Brief Regarding Standing and Scope of Injunctive Relief by Plaintiff Cato Institute(Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 10/31/2022)

Oct. 31, 2022

Oct. 31, 2022

RECAP
26

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 11/01/2022)

Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

RECAP
27

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Doc. 26, directing that defendant may file a response not to exceed 45 pages and plaintiff a reply, if any, not to exceed 10 pages. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 11/1/22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) (Entered: 11/01/2022)

Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

PACER

Motions No Longer Referred

Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

PACER

MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 26 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(bh)

Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

PACER
28

NOTICE of Development in Garrison v. U.S. Dep't of Education by Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supreme Court Docket, No. 22A373)(Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 11/07/2022)

Nov. 7, 2022

Nov. 7, 2022

PACER
29

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss for Improper Venue ( Response deadline 11/28/2022), MOTION to Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ( Response deadline 11/21/2022) by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 11/07/2022)

Nov. 7, 2022

Nov. 7, 2022

RECAP
30

RESPONSE by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education re 13 Motion for TRO and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 29 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction & Motion to Transfer Case (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 11/07/2022)

Nov. 7, 2022

Nov. 7, 2022

RECAP
31

EXHIBIT(S) IN SUPPORT of 30 Response to Motion Declaration of James Richard Kvaal by Defendants Joseph R. Biden, Miguel Cardona, Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Education (Attachments: # 1 Rationale for the Pandemic-Connected Loan Discharge Program, # 2 Decision Memo from Secretary Cardona to Chief Operating Officer Cordray, # 3 Waivers and Modifications Memo from Secretary Cardona to Assistant Secretary Nasser Paydar)(Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 11/07/2022)

1 Rationale for the Pandemic-Connected Loan Discharge Program

View on PACER

2 Decision Memo from Secretary Cardona to Chief Operating Officer Cordray

View on PACER

3 Waivers and Modifications Memo from Secretary Cardona to Assistant Secretary Na

View on PACER

Nov. 7, 2022

Nov. 7, 2022

PACER
32

Summons Returned Executed -- served by Certified Mail on 10/20/2022 Summons served on United States Attorney General. President Biden, Richard Cordray, Miguel Cardona, and U.S. Department of Education (Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 11/09/2022)

Nov. 9, 2022

Nov. 9, 2022

PACER
33

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Plaintiff Cato Institute re: 13 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 11/10/2022)

Nov. 10, 2022

Nov. 10, 2022

RECAP
34

Order. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that "Defendants' unauthorized student-loan-debt-cancellation scheme [is] unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful" and "to enjoin its implementation and set it aside." Doc. 1 at 29. An in-person hearing on this request is scheduled to occur on November 17. Doc. 23. Plaintiff's request is similar to several other suits filed across the country seeking the same result. Doc. 24 at 4 (identifying, among others, Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., N.D. Tex. Case No. 22-0908). And on November 10, 2023, the Northern District of Texas in Brown granted summary judgment to the two plaintiffs in that suit, declaring the student loan forgiveness plan unlawful and vacating it in its entirety. Brown v. Dep't of Educ., No. 4:22-cv-0908, 2022 WL 16858525, at *14 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022); see also Nebraska v. Biden, 2022 WL 16912145 (8th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (granting several states request for emergency injunction of the student loan forgiveness plan pending appeal). A stay of this litigation therefore seems prudent because the Brown decision may be entitled preclusive effect on the legal question presented by Plaintiff's complaint. See Kittel v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 303 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (10th Cir. 2002) (staying proceedings in a res judicata context until a state appeal was resolved); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 cmt. F (Am. L. Inst. 1982). The Court will schedule a brief phone conference to occur on November 15 to discuss how best to proceed, including whether the November 17 hearing should be cancelled. Signed by District Judge Toby Crouse on 11/14/22. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(ta) (Entered: 11/14/2022)

Nov. 14, 2022

Nov. 14, 2022

PACER

Order

Nov. 14, 2022

Nov. 14, 2022

PACER
35

NOTICE OF CANCELLED HEARING previously scheduled for November 17, 2022. Order with briefing deadlines to follow. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ta) (Entered: 11/16/2022)

Nov. 16, 2022

Nov. 16, 2022

PACER
36

ORDER: Additional briefing is requested regarding 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Cato Institute. The Government's brief is to be filed no later than November 29, 2022, Plaintiff's response is to be filed no later than December 13, 2022, and the Government's reply, if any, is to be filed no later than December 20, 2022. The Government has filed a motion seeking dismissal or transfer based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper venue 29 . Plaintiff's response in opposition and the Government's reply should be filed on December 13, 2022, and December 20, 2022, respectively. To the extent practicable, the response and reply briefs should be consolidated with the briefing on the impact of Brown. (Entered: 11/16/2022)

Nov. 16, 2022

Nov. 16, 2022

RECAP

Notice of Cancelled Hearing

Nov. 16, 2022

Nov. 16, 2022

PACER
37

RESPONSE by Defendants Richard Cordray, Miguel Cardona, U.S. Department of Education, Joseph R. Biden re 34 Order,,,,,,, 36 Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,, Order,,, Supplemental Brief re Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Education, No. 4:22-cv-908 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022) (Knapp, Cody) (Entered: 11/29/2022)

Nov. 29, 2022

Nov. 29, 2022

RECAP
38

RESPONSE by Plaintiff Cato Institute re 34 Order,,,,,,, 36 Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,, Order,,, Responding to Defendants Supplemental Brief 37 (Chenoweth, Markham) (Entered: 12/06/2022)

Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Kansas

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Education

Special Collection(s):

Challenges to Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 18, 2022

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Cato Institute, a nonprofit libertarian think tank

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Education, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General:

Education