n Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan and the U. S. Department of Education, the Department of Education published final rules as originally proposed but included an additional final rule with new regulatory requirements for colleges offering distance learning. When the final rules were challenged on the basis that the Department failed to provide adequate notice of the new rule, what did the court hold?

Question

Guest

Social Studies

3 March, 05:20

n Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan and the U. S. Department of Education, the Department of Education published final rules as originally proposed but included an additional final rule with new regulatory requirements for colleges offering distance learning. When the final rules were challenged on the basis that the Department failed to provide adequate notice of the new rule, what did the court hold?

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Apollo · Answer 1

In Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan and the U. S. Department of Education, the Department of Education published final rules as originally proposed but included an additional final rule with new regulatory requirements for colleges offering distance learning. When the final rules were challenged on the basis that the Department failed to provide adequate notice of the new rule, what did the court hold?

A) The department should have given proper notice of the new rule because it was not a logical outgrowth of the original rules, and because the department had not done so, the new rule was invalid.

B) The department should have given proper notice of the new rule but lack of notice did not invalidate the rule because the Department is not required to go through formal rulemaking procedure.

C) The department did not need to give public notice of the new rule because the change was a logical outhgrowth of the original rule.

D) The department did not need to give public noticebecause the new rule was based on the same public policy as the original rule.

Answer: A) The department should have given proper notice of the new rule because it was not a logical outgrowth of the original rules, and because the department had not done so, the new rule was invalid.

Explanation:

The Department of Education (DOE) promulgated a new rule in 2011 requiring the reporting of distinct data.

In APSCU v. Duncan (2012), the Association confronted Arne Duncan, the secretary of the DOE, claiming that the new rule was invalid.

The court agreed, ruling that there had been a lack of a reasoned explanation and proper notice.