Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[bsjkki]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So they want the judge to make the schools act as if the plaintiff is right, before the courts prove that the plaintiff is right?

Yes. 

[Thinking]

On 5/30/2021 at 12:58 PM, provoman said:

But does a School recieve Federal funding? Or does the student apply to request the Federal Government for a loan, with the agreement that if the loan is granted it will go to specified school? 
 

So when a loan is granted the Federal money is "converted" to monies in the students name.  And so while ultimately the money goes to the school, the money was the students, and so Federal money did not go to the School.

Receiving Grant or Loan monies is not the same as earning money from work. The application process requires verification of enrollment at a qualified institution and information about how much tuition is among other things. The money was transferred to the student to use for school. The reason student loans are affected is the government pays the interest to the bank where the loan was secured until 6 months after the student finishes going to school.

By the time I graduated from BYU in 1991, the pell grant money for tuition went directly to BYU. I received a check for the amount of the difference if the grant was more than tuition. The money was never mine to just do as I please.

[smac97]

On 8/6/2021 at 10:34 AM, bluebell said:

Quote

Aug 6, 2021

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ENTER; MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF

 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.159668/gov.uscourts.ord.159668.44.0.pdf

Translation?

Okay:

1. Broadly speaking, a person who wants to file a lawsuit is asking a judge to make a decision about a disputed issue.

2. The process starts with the plaintiff filing a "Complaint" that A) identifies the court, the parties, and the basis for the court's jurisdiction to address the dispute, and also includes B) a "statement of facts" section outlining the basic facts of the dispute, C) a series of "causes of action," which are various legal claims that, if proven, entitle the plaintiff to some sort of "winning" decision from the court, and D) a "prayer for relief" section that summarizes just what it is the plaintiff wants the court to do.

3. The plaintiff files the Complaint with the court and then delivers it to the defendant.  The defendant can respond in a few ways, but generally it will file an "Answer" to the Complaint that briefly responds to the Plaintiff's factual allegations and legal theories.  The defendant also has the option of suing the plaintiff (a "Counterclaim") or one of the other defendants (a "Crossclaim") or someone not yet involved in the dispute (a "Third Party Complaint").  

4. Once the foregoing steps are completed, the parties move into the "discovery" phase of the lawsuit, wherein they exchange information, documents, etc., gather evidence, issue subpoenas, and periodically go to the judge to resolve any intermediate issues that may arise.

5. The lawsuit, if not abandoned or resolved through settlement, typically concludes by the parties going to trial.  However, the vast majority of lawsuits never reach that point, and are instead abandoned, or settled, or else resolved in a "Motion for Summary Judgment" prior to trial.  Either party (or both parties) can file such a motion.  It basically is saying "Hey, Judge, we think there is no real dispute about the facts of the case, about what actually happened.  That being the case, we think you can resolve this without going to trial by granting this motion for the following reasons..."  If the motion is granted, then the case is over.  If not, then it proceeds to trial.

6. As you can see, there are a lot of potential twists and turns in a civil lawsuit.  The foregoing summary barely scratches the surface.  There are all sorts of ways a lawsuit can end up lasting a long time and requiring a lot of work and a lot of money.

7. One of the possible "twists" in a civil lawsuit is when a party, usually the plaintiff, files a motion asking the court for a "Temporary Restraining Order" ("TRO"), which is an order from the Court telling the defendant to do, or not do, something.  Basically, it's like going to the judge and saying "Hey, Judge.  The defendant is doing something really bad right now, and we do not want to wait until after the discovery and trial phases are over.  So we are asking you to give us a TRO that essentially let's us have the legal remedy now that we would otherwise not get until after a successful summary judgment motion or a trial."

8. A TRO, being "temporary," typically lasts only 14 days.  So if the judge grants the TRO, then the parties have a hearing at or near the end of that 14 days for the judge to determine if the TRO should be converted into a "Preliminary Injunction," which is essentially the same as a TRO, except that it lasts for the duration of the lawsuit (which could be many months, even years).

9. In order to obtain a TRO, the plaintiff ("movant," the party filing the motion) needs to persuade the judge that (A) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (B) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the TRO is not granted; (C) the threatened injury [to the movant] outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (D) the granting of the TRO will not disserve the public interest.  More details are available here.

10. It is important to understand that, generally speaking, the purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo, the factual and legal state of things as they presently exist without court intervention.  “{T}he purpose of a TRO ... is to preserve the status quo so that a reasoned resolution of a dispute may be had.”  Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Tr. Co., 78 F.3d 219, 226 (6th Cir. 1996).  However, a request for a TRO that alters the status quo “{is} not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result and are not issued in doubtful cases.”  Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted).

11. Getting a TRO that preserves the status quo is typically quite difficult from a legal perspective.  Generally a lot of factual and legal planets need to be in alignment, and a lot of solid evidence needs to have been submitted, in order for the court to grant one.  And tetting a TRO that alters the status quo is even more difficult.

12. As noted above, a TRO is temporary, and must therefore be converted to a Preliminary Injunction in order to last longer that 14 days.  If the party ultimately wins the lawsuit, then the injunction can become permanent.

13. With these basics in mind, let's look at the "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order" linked to earlier in this thread (link here also).  Basically, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are asking the court to prohibit ("enjoin" in the technical legal term) the "Defendants and their agents" (the Department of Education)  from dismissing the plaintiffs' complaints that are apparently being heard in "several regional offices" of the DOE.

Okay, so this can be a bit confusing (and I should note that I am way outside my comfort zone, as I don't litigate in this area of law).  The motion seeking the TRO was filed in a federal district court in Oregon.  However, the plaintiffs have also filed a number of "discrimination complaints" with the DOE's Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") (see, e.g., here).  Disputes submitted to the OCR are, I think, intended to be a more streamlined means of resolving a discrimination claim without going to court.  However, it's not an either/or scenario.  A party can file a complaint with the OCR and then still file a complaint in federal court, or else just skip the OCR altogether and just file the lawsuit in federal court.

The plaintiff's TRO motion, then, is asking a federal judge from the Judicial Branch of the federal government to enter an order against the OCR (which is part of the DOE, which is part of the Executive Branch of government) from dismissing the complaints that have been filed with various regional offices of the OCR.  This seems . . . odd.  Whatever happens with a complaint filed with the OCR, the plaintiffs can still file suit in federal court.  It's not like a dismissal of the OCR complaints is the end of the road for these plaintiffs.  And even if it were, they would have appellate remedies.  And it seems odd - perhaps problematic - for a federal judge to stop quasi-judicial proceedings that are pending in another branch of government.

Again, I'm way outside of my wheelhouse here.  Offhand, though, I think the TRO will not be granted.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Basically, school is starting and they want a temporary ruling that means religious schools can’t have a title 9 exemption for religious reasons.  

I don't think that's right.  The TRO is asking a federal judge to stop the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights from dismissing pending Title IX complaints that the plaintiffs have filed (with the DOE).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Receiving Grant or Loan monies is not the same as earning money from work. The application process requires verification of enrollment at a qualified institution and information about how much tuition is among other things. The money was transferred to the student to use for school. The reason student loans are affected is the government pays the interest to the bank where the loan was secured until 6 months after the student finishes going to school.

By the time I graduated from BYU in 1991, the pell grant money for tuition went directly to BYU. I received a check for the amount of the difference if the grant was more than tuition. The money was never mine to just do as I please.

The money was still yours to use at an institution of your choice. The government doesn’t trust students to pay tuition first so they send it where you tell them to send it and insure fees are covered before the excess is then turned over to the student.

I gather, you don’t believe students should be able to choose to use federal grants to attend religious schools?

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that's right.  The TRO is asking a federal judge to stop the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights from dismissing pending Title IX complaints that the plaintiffs have filed (with the DOE).

Thanks,

-Smac

So, they don’t want the DOE to kill their case? If you’re outside your wheelhouse, I am a galaxy outside mine.

 

[bsjkki]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So they want the judge to make the schools act as if the plaintiff is right, before the courts prove that the plaintiff is right?

Refer to Smac’s explanation. I did not understand and should have read more carefully. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, they don’t want the DOE to kill their case? If you’re outside your wheelhouse, I am a galaxy outside mine.

The plaintiffs have filed complaints with the DOE's OCR.  They are now anticipating that those complaints will be dismissed.  The dismissals will likely be based on the religious exemption under Title IX.  As I see it, they are asking the federal judge in Oregon to order the OCR to not dismiss those complaints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I gather, you don’t believe students should be able to choose to use federal grants to attend religious schools?

I didn't say that.

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I didn't say that.

No, you didn’t. I apologize. 
 

 

Edited August 6, 2021 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The plaintiffs have filed complaints with the DOE's OCR.  They are now anticipating that those complaints will be dismissed.  The dismissals will likely be based on the religious exemption under Title IX.  As I see it, they are asking the federal judge in Oregon to order the OCR to not dismiss those complaints.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am pretty sure they are expecting or hoping that other litigation will end with another court killing the portions of Title IX that would cause their complaints to be dismissed. Basically they want the court to hold off on dismissing them due to Title IX because they expect/hope that that portion of the law will be gone and then the complaints will not be dismissed under Title IX because that part of the law will be null and void.

That is my bare bones understanding when I dug in a few days ago.

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Receiving Grant or Loan monies is not the same as earning money from work. The application process requires verification of enrollment at a qualified institution and information about how much tuition is among other things. The money was transferred to the student to use for school. The reason student loans are affected is the government pays the interest to the bank where the loan was secured until 6 months after the student finishes going to school.

By the time I graduated from BYU in 1991, the pell grant money for tuition went directly to BYU. I received a check for the amount of the difference if the grant was more than tuition. The money was never mine to just do as I please.

Actually, the pelll grant is an unrestricted grant, Even though the school adminsters it and can take any unpaid fees out first.  Technically, a student could pay tuition with their own funds first and the school would have to deliver the entire pell grant amount to the student. The student could then use the grant for anything they wished.  This is important in tax law where you could designate the pell grant as taxable if it wasn't used for tuition (and thus be used to increase education credits among other things)

Edited August 6, 2021 by Danzo

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I see it, they are asking the federal judge in Oregon to order the OCR to not dismiss those complaints.

 

Maybe they believe having been dismissed once, they will more likely be dismissed again…or are just lazy and don’t want to have to do the paperwork again.  

Appreciate the detailed explanation. I feel I could now play a lawyer on TV if I had to…except for the whole stage fright thing. 

[JustAnAustralian]

I wouldn't have the patience to read pages and pages of stuff that isn't always relevant.

[JustAnAustralian]

Things are kicking off again. The defendants have filed their response. As well as what looks like a heavy hitting request for Amicus Curiae

Quote

21 Sep:

The State of Montana, State of Alabama, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, State of Indiana, State of Kansas, State of Kentucky, State of Louisiana, State of Mississippi, State of Nebraska, State of Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, and State of Utah (collectively “the States”) move for leave to file the accompanying proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae.

...

The States have a substantial interest in Title IX’s religious exemption and the outcome of this case. Plaintiffs’ claims challenging Title IX’s religious exemption directly implicate bedrock First Amendment principles. The States seek to preserve religious liberty and protect the rights of conscience for their citizens and institutions of faith. Hundreds of higher education institutions across the country bear a religious imprint. These schools contribute to the vibrant civic life of the States. But to preserve their unique character and honor their religious tenets, they require exemption from Title IX. The States support a broad application of this religious exemption—it protects these unique schools from religious-based discrimination and prevents the government from interfering in religious matters of theology, membership, and conduct.

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[rongo]

Might this be a factor in BYU announcing that it is eliminating BYU approved housing? This will hopefully break the monopoly and help with rising rents, but it also pits the living arrangements solely on the student and gets BYU out of it altogether.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Might this be a factor in BYU announcing that it is eliminating BYU approved housing? This will hopefully break the monopoly and help with rising rents, but it also pits the living arrangements solely on the student and gets BYU out of it altogether.

"Do not trust to hope. It has forsaken these lands."

My response would be "No, housing prices/rental prices, will not lead to lower rental prices."   First, rental management companies raise their rents almost every year, without justification.  I lived in a place in Utah, that was built in the 1980s. We get a notice that rent was being increased, no extra amenities, nothing extra provide, no improvements- just an arbitrary raising of rent. 

Someone I spoke too about a month ago got a "pay the increased rent or move", the person states when they asked why  their rent was being raised they were told "Because all other rental companies are raising their rents [and it isn't fair that another rental management company makes more money than us]."

Also in my experience people in Utah rent their basements for about 50% of their mortgage payment, and for whatever reason, people are willing pay an offensively high rent payment.

So no I have zero reason to even "hope" rent prices /housing prices will go down in Utah. 

The landlords/management companies will use the farce of "supply & demand" to raise rents or to keep the rents high.

Edited September 26, 2021 by provoman

[carbon dioxide]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

"Do not trust to hope. It has forsaken these lands."

My response would be "No, housing prices/rental prices, will not lead to lower rental prices."   First, rental management companies raise their rents almost every year, without justification.  I lived in a place in Utah, that was built in the 1980s. We get a notice that rent was being increased, no extra amenities, nothing extra provide, no improvements- just an arbitrary raising of rent. 

Someone I spoke too about a month ago got a "pay the increased rent or move", the person states when they asked why  their rent was being raised they were told "Because all other rental companies are raising their rents [and it isn't fair that another rental management company makes more money than us]."

Also in my experience people in Utah rent their basements for about 50% of their mortgage payment, and for whatever reason, people are willing pay an offensively high rent payment.

So no I have zero reason to even "hope" rent prices /housing prices will go down in Utah. 

The landlords/management companies will use the farce of "supply & demand" to raise rents or to keep the rents high.

Perhaps it may raise rents even more.  Perhaps some rental groups were worried about losing their BYU approved status and kept rental rates a little lower than they wanted to go.  Since rents are up across Utah, there is only one way the rents will go and that is up.

[rongo]

It just seems to me that without the (sometimes onerous) requirements to get the BYU approved seal of approval, more housing options might drive prices down. When you can only live in approved housing, that creates an artificial monopoly.

The Utah market might be hopeless, anyway. My kids are stunned that my rent as a single student was only $85 a month. When we got married, our apartment was only $425 a month. 

Our college kids live in Flagstaff, which is a super high market as well. Available relatively affordable housing is mostly dumps --- shockingly so. I wonder if deregulating BYU approved will lead to a lower minimum quality standard. I think, given the choice, most non-wealthy students would choose the affordable dump.

[rongo]

As far as this thread topic, I do wonder if keeping the federal government away is the main reason for deregulating housing at BYU, not student economics.

[JustAnAustralian]

Elliott David has withdrawn as one of the attorneys for the defendants.

Eight new plaintiffs have been added in an amended complaint.