ARGUMENTS:

1.  APC's Position:  The Regulations Do Not Exceed The Department’s Authority Under The Higher Education Act because: A) the Statutory Language is Ambiguous As To The Precise Question At Issue and B) The Structure, Purpose, And History of the Statute Do Not Answer the Precise Question At Issue But Rather Demonstrate The Reasonableness of the Department’s Construction (mostly dealing with accreditation here).  

The Department's Response:  The Department claims that Congress did not speak to whether the Department may measure the requirement that schools "prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation" with respect to students’ ability to repay their federal student loans but rather left the construction of the ambiguous phrase up to the Department.   Here, the Department cites APSCU I and "persuasive legislative history" that Congress intended that in authorizing federal student loans for vocational training, schools would provide training that would lead to jobs that would allow their graduates to repay their student loans.   Further, the Department attempts to discredit APC's claim that the GE Rules usurp accreditation agencies power.  

2.  APC's Position:  The Regulations Do Not Violate the Due Process Clause because: A) the Plaintiff’s Due Process Claims Are Not Justiciable; B) Plaintiff’s Procedural Due Process Claims Fail; C) The Regulations Do Not Create an Unlawful Presumption; and, D) The Regulations Are Not Retroactive. 

The Department's  Response:  The Department claims that APC’s Due Process claims fails because APC has not alleged any imminent injury with respect to this claim, nor do schools have a protected interest in continued eligibility for student loan programs.  The Department also contends absent those initial problems, the procedures provided for in the regulations minimize any risk of erroneous deprivation from schools not having access to individual earnings data.  The Department also claims that the regulations are not impermissibly retroactive as they only have future effects.

3.  APC's Position:  The Regulations Do Not Violate the Administrative Procedure Act because A) The Debt-to-Earnings Rates, Which Form the Basis of the Department’s Eligibility Determinations, Are Reasonable; B) The Gainful Employment Rules Measure Program Effectiveness; C) The Department Relied on High-Quality Data; D) The Regulations Do Not Establish a Database of Student Information; and E) The Limitations of the Regulations to Title IV Students Is Reasonable.  

 

The Department's Response:  The Department claims that the regulations are not arbitrary or capricious, or otherwise in violation of the APA because the D/E rates are supported by "substantial expert opinion"; the rules reasonably measure whether programs have prepared students for jobs that will allow them to repay their debt "when it becomes due"’; the rules measure outcomes, not demographics; and the Department adequately explained why the rules differ from previous attempts at the gainful employment regulations.  

For complete coverage on the latest on the judicial processes and status of the two GE lawsuits, go to AACS Action.org. There you can gain access to the actual filings in each case, as well as summaries of each filing, prepared for AACS by Akerman Senterfitt attorney, Nicholas Falvo.