CONNECTICUT v. SPELLINGS
549 F.Supp.2d 161 (2008)
State of CONNECTICUT, et al., Plaintiffs,
Margaret SPELLINGS, Secretary of Education, Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.
April 28, 2008.
Clare E. Kindall, Ralph E. Urban, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General's Office, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs.
Elizabeth Goitein, Heather R. Phillips, Marcia Berman, Samuel C. Kaplan, Washington, DC, John B. Hughes, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Haven, CT, for Defendant.
MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
Pending before the. Court are a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [doc. # 133] filed by Plaintiffs, the State of Connecticut and its General Assembly (collectively, the "State"), a Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Record [doc. # 145] filed by Defendant, Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education (the "Secretary"), and a Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Record and Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Record [doc. # 142] filed by Intervenor-Plaintiff, Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP (the "NAACP"). For the reasons explained below, the Court denies the State's Motion [doc. # 133], grants the Secretary's Cross-Motion [doc. # 145], and grants the NAACP's Cross-Motion [doc. # 142].I.
The dispute in this case arises under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-7941 (2006) (the "Act"). The facts underlying this dispute are set forth in greater detail in this Court's previous ruling on the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 18] ("Motion to Dismiss Ruling" [doc. # 87]), familiarity with which is assumed. See Connecticut v. Spellings,453 F.Supp.2d 459 (D.Conn. 2006). In its Motion to Dismiss Ruling, the Court addressed "only the threshold issues relating to its jurisdiction and authority to consider the various claims raised by the State," id. at 465, and dismissed the first three of the State's four counts of its Second Amended Complaint [doc. # 81] because the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over them. See id. at 465, 491, 494, 501; see also Arizona State Dep't of Educ. v. US. Dep't of Educ., No. CV061719PHXDGC, 2007 WL 433581, at *7 (D.Ariz. Feb.6, 2007) ("This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this pre-enforcement declaratory judgment action regarding the meaning of § 6316(b)(2)(B).").1 The Court further declined to address the claims asserted in the State's fourth count, which appealed the Secretary's denials of Connecticut's two proposed plan amendments regarding the timing and method of assessment of two groups of students—special education and Limited English Proficiency ("LEP") students. See Spellings, 453 F.Supp.2d at 464.2 The Court did so because it "conclude[d]
that any consideration of the merits of either party's statutory arguments would require further development of the record." Id. at 465; see also id. at 501-02.3
Following issuance of the Motion to Dismiss Ruling, on July 12, 2007, the Secretary submitted an Amended Certified Administrative Record ("A.C.A.R.") [doc. # 132]. Soon after, the State, the Secretary and the NAACP filed their motions for judgment on the administrative record on Count IV.A. Relevant Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act