throbber
Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-10127
`
`
`
`Hon.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`LIVINGSTON EDUCATIONAL
`
`SERVICE AGENCY; SAGINAW
`INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
`DISTRICT; WALLED LAKE
`CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
`DISTRICT; and WAYNE-
`WESTLAND COMMUNITY
`SCHOOLS,
`
`
`vs.
`XAVIER BECERRA, in his official
`capacity as Secretary of Health and
`Human Services; UNITED STATES
`DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
`HUMAN SERVICES; JOOYEUN
`CHANG, in her official capacity as
`Assistant Secretary and Principal
`Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
`Administration for Children and
`Families; ADMINISTRATION FOR
`CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; and
`BERNADINE FUTRELL, in her
`official capacity as the Director of the
`Office of Head Start,
`
`
`
`Amy E. Murphy (P82369)
`Robert T. Schindler (P70925)
`Rebecca L. Strauss (P64796)
`Breanne N. Gilliam (P85611)
`Brett Swearingen (P number pending)
`MILLER JOHNSON
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`45 Ottawa Avenue SW, Suite 1100
`Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`(616) 831-1700
`murphya@millerjohnson.com
`schindlerr@millerjohnson.com
`straussr@millerjohnson.com
`gilliamb@millerjohnson.com
`swearingenb@millerjohnson.com
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`Plaintiffs comprise Head Start grantees and Head Start contractors
`
`
`
`throughout the State. They file this Complaint for declaratory judgment, injunctive
`
`relief, and other relief to vindicate their rights and to preserve their ability to provide
`
`necessary services to children and families who participate in Head Start programs,
`
`as detailed below:
`
`Introduction
` Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge Defendants’ Interim
`
`1.
`
`Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 68,052 (Nov. 30, 2021) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt.
`
`1302), entitled “Vaccine and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-
`
`19 in Head Start Programs” (hereinafter “Head Start Mandate” or “Mandate”).
`
`2.
`
`The Head Start Mandate unlawfully imposes a mandatory
`
`vaccination requirement on all staff and certain contractors and volunteers. Those
`
`subject to the Mandate must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 31,
`
`2022.
`
`3.
`
`The Head Start Mandate, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm
`
`to Plaintiffs and the children and families whom Head Start was created to serve.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`Plaintiffs will lose staff, which will result in classroom and program closures. Head
`
`Start children and families, a majority of whom live below the poverty line, will lose
`
`access to the Head Start services that they rely on for high quality early childhood
`
`education, food, and childcare.
`
`Jurisdictional Allegations
`Plaintiff Livingston Educational Service Agency (“Livingston
`
`4.
`
`ESA”) is a Michigan intermediate school district, headquartered at 1425 W. Grand
`
`River Road, Howell, Michigan 48843.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Saginaw Intermediate School District (“Saginaw ISD”)
`
`is a Michigan intermediate school district, headquartered at 3933 Barnard Road,
`
`Saginaw, Michigan 48603.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Walled Lake Consolidated School District (“Walled
`
`Lake”) is a Michigan General Powers school district, headquartered at 850 Ladd
`
`Road, Building D., Walled Lake, Michigan 48390.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Wayne-Westland Community Schools (“Wayne-
`
`Westland”) is a Michigan General Powers school district that provides educational
`
`opportunities for students from Westland, Wayne, Canton, Dearborn Heights,
`
`Inkster, and Romulus. Wayne-Westland is headquartered at 36745 Marquette,
`
`Westland, Michigan 48185.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Xavier Becerra is the Secretary of Health and Human
`
`Services. He is being sued in his official capacity.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant United States Department of Health and Human
`
`Services (HHS) is an executive department of the United States government.
`
`10. Defendant JooYeun Chang is the acting Assistant Secretary and
`
`Principal Deputy Assistant of the Administration for Children and Families. She is
`
`being sued in her official capacity.
`
`11. Defendant Administration for Children and Families is an
`
`agency within HHS.
`
`12. Defendant Bernadine Futrell is the director of the Office of Head
`
`Start. She is being sued in her official capacity.
`
`13. The Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`14. This Court has authority to award the requested injunctive relief
`
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the requested declaratory relief under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
`
`15. Venue in this district is proper because a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b)(2).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`The Head Start Program
`
`General Allegations
`
`16. Head Start is a federal program governed by statute and created
`
`“to promote the school readiness of low-income children by enhancing their
`
`cognitive, social, and emotional development.” 42 U.S.C. § 9831.
`
`17. Head Start provides educational, nutritional, social, health and
`
`other services to low-income children and their families. 42 U.S.C. § 9831(2).
`
`18. Early Head Start programs provide comprehensive child
`
`development and family support services to low-income infants and toddlers under
`
`the age of three and their families and to pregnant women and their families.
`
`19. With limited exceptions, children are not eligible to participate
`
`in Head Start programs unless their families’ incomes fall below the poverty line. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 9840.
`
`20. Head Start programs have strict child-to-teacher ratios that must
`
`be followed in the classrooms.
`
`21. A class that serves children under 36 months old is required to
`
`have two teachers with no more than eight children, or three teachers with no more
`
`than nine children. Each teacher in the class must have primary responsibility for no
`
`more than four children. 42 C.F.R. § 1302.21(b)(2).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`22. A class with a majority of children who are three years old must
`
`have no more than 17 children with one teacher plus a teaching assistant or two
`
`teachers. 42 C.F.R. § 1302.21(b)(3).
`
`23. A class with a majority of children who are four and five years
`
`old must have no more than 20 children with one teacher plus a teaching assistant or
`
`two teachers. 42 C.F.R. § 1302.21(b)(4).
`
`24. These ratio restrictions make the risk of classroom or program
`
`closures significant. The loss of one teacher can mean the closure of a full classroom
`
`and the forced withdrawal of the children in that classroom from the program.
`
`25. A single classroom closure has a devastating impact on children
`
`enrolled in the Head Start program who depend on that program for quality early
`
`childhood education.
`
`26. A closure of a single classroom also deprives the families of
`
`enrolled children from Head Start’s services and makes it difficult for the parents of
`
`enrolled children to maintain employment.
`
`27. As Defendants state, “[f]amilies rely on Head Start programs to
`
`provide stable and reliable early care and education services to their children, and
`
`the effects of intermittent closures are significant.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 68,057.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`The Head Start Mandate
`28. On September 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced several
`
`federal vaccine mandates, including one for the Head Start program.1
`
`29. On November 30, 2021, the Secretary issued the Head Start
`
`Mandate imposing a COVID-19 vaccination mandate in Head Start programs. 86
`
`Fed. Reg. at 68,052.
`
`30. The Mandate requires “all Head Start staff, contractors whose
`
`activities involve contact with or providing direct services to children and families,
`
`and volunteers working in classrooms or directly with children to be vaccinated for
`
`COVID-19 by January 31, 2022.” Id. at 68,052.
`
`31. The Mandate applies to “all staff who work with enrolled
`
`children and families in any capacity regardless of funding source.” Id. at 68,060.
`
`32. Contractors include outside service providers, bus drivers, and
`
`any other contractors who contact or provide direct service to children and families.
`
`33.
`
`“[A]ll volunteers [must] adhere to these requirements not just
`
`those who regularly volunteer.” Id. at 68,061. Even someone who volunteers on a
`
`
`1 White House, Remarks by President Biden on Fighting the COVID-19 Pandemic
`(Sept. 9, 2021), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-
`remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-
`pandemic-3/ (last visited Jan. 20, 2022) (Exhibit 1).
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 01/20/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`single occasion in a Head Start classroom is mandated by HHS to be fully vaccinated
`
`against COVID-19.
`
`34.
`
`“Fully vaccinated,” for purposes of the Mandate, means two
`
`weeks following receipt of (i) the single dose of an approved single-dose vaccine or
`
`(ii) the second dose of an approved two-dose vaccine. Id. at 68,060.
`
`35. The Office of Head Start has advised Head Start programs that
`
`those subject to the Mandate must have their second dose in a two-dose series or
`
`their first dose in a single-dose series by January 31, 2022.
`
`36. There is no testing option as an alternative to the vaccine
`
`requirement.
`
`37.
`
`Instead, a weekly testing option is available only to those (i) for
`
`whom a vaccine is medically contraindicated; (ii) for whom medical necessity
`
`requires a delay in vaccination; or (iii) who are entitled to an accommodation under
`
`applicable Federal law. Id. at 68,061-62.
`
`38. The Mandate also requires “universal masking, with some noted
`
`exceptions, for all individuals two years of age and older when there are two or more
`
`individuals in a vehicle owned, leased, or arranged by the Head Start program; when
`
`they are indoors in a setting where Head Start services are provided; and, for those
`
`not fully vaccinated, outdoors in crowded settings or during activities that involve
`
`close contact with other people.” Id. at 68,053.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 01/20/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`39. The masking requirement, which went into effect immediately,
`
`is not the subject of this challenge.
`
`40.
`
`If a Head Start program does not comply with the Mandate, the
`
`Secretary must take certain corrective action, including initiating proceedings to
`
`terminate the program’s funding. 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(e)(1)(C).
`
`41. Defendants assert that they have authority to issue the Head Start
`
`Mandate under 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(1)(C)-(E), which provides that “[t]he Secretary
`
`shall modify, as necessary, program performance standards by regulation applicable
`
`to Head Start agencies and programs under this subchapter, including—…(C)
`
`administrative and financial management standards; (D) standards relating to the
`
`condition and location of facilities (including indoor air quality assessment
`
`standards, where appropriate) for such agencies and programs… [and] (E) such other
`
`standards as the Secretary finds to be appropriate.”
`
`42. The Head Start Mandate is not a modification of a program
`
`performance standard.
`
`43. HHS has never before mandated vaccination for Head Start staff,
`
`contractors, or volunteers—and not even for children enrolled in a Head Start
`
`program.
`
`authority.
`
`
`
`44. A vaccine mandate is simply not within the Secretary’s delegated
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`45. The Mandate is otherwise invalid under federal statutory and
`
`constitutional law.
`
`46. The Secretary is currently enjoined from enforcing the Head
`
`Start Mandate in 25 states (but not in Michigan). See Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:21-
`
`CV-300-H, 2021 WL 6198102 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2021); Louisiana v. Becerra, No.
`
`3:21-CV-04370, 2022 WL 16571 (W.D. La. Jan. 1, 2022).
`
`The Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs
`47. The Mandate will cause devastating and irreparable harm to
`
`Plaintiffs and to the children and families whom Head Start was created to serve.
`
`48. Plaintiffs are Head Start grantees and contractors who serve
`
`children and families throughout the State of Michigan.
`
`
`
`49. Under a threat of terminated funding, Head Start programs are
`
`forced to comply with a mandate that means terminating or losing staff and relevant
`
`contractors and volunteers who are not vaccinated. This will result in a reduction of
`
`Head Start services provided to qualifying children and families. Head Start
`
`programs and Head Start children and families will suffer a grave and irreparable
`
`harm.
`
`50. Plaintiff Livingston ESA is a Head Start grant recipient and has
`
`60 classroom staff members, 29 special education staff members, 24 transportation
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 01/20/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`staff members, 14 office/leadership staff members, and 10 substitutes who all either
`
`are Head Start staff or provide services to Head Start classrooms and students.
`
`51. Livingston ESA currently serves 167 Head Start students, with a
`
`maximum capacity of 174.
`
`52. Livingston ESA provides a wide variety of essential services to
`
`Head Start students. Some of the services include high quality education, meals,
`
`speech therapy, occupational therapy, social work services, transportation, parent
`
`engagement hours, translation services, and nutrition/dietician services. Livingston
`
`ESA also provides meals to Head Start students who are quarantining at home.
`
`53. Livingston ESA takes several precautionary measures to mitigate
`
`the spread of COVID-19 including requiring classroom staff to wear a mask and
`
`students to wear a mask while in class.
`
`54.
`
`If a student or staff tests positive for COVID-19, they must
`
`quarantine for ten days. If there is a close contact with someone in the student’s
`
`household, the student must stay at home through the quarantine period plus an
`
`additional ten days of isolation.
`
`55. Since December 1, 2021, 73.3% of Livingston ESA employees
`
`who have tested positive for COVID-19 are vaccinated.
`
`56. At
`
`least 37 staff members at Livingston ESA remain
`
`unvaccinated. If Livingston ESA is forced to fire unvaccinated staff members,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 01/20/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`multiple classroom closures will occur. For every classroom that is closed, 16
`
`students would no longer be able to participate in Head Start.
`
`57. Plaintiff Saginaw ISD is also a Head Start grant recipient and
`
`currently has about 180 staff members and serves 859 Head Start students plus
`
`another 156 Early Head Start students.
`
`58.
`
` Saginaw ISD provides Head Start students with high quality
`
`education, special education services, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and
`
`speech therapy.
`
`59. About 8% of Saginaw ISD staff is unvaccinated.
`
`60. Saginaw ISD enforces masking as a way to mitigate the spread
`
`of COVID-19.
`
`61. Losing staff, which is very likely as a result of the Head Start
`
`Mandate, would force Saginaw ISD to close multiple Head Start classrooms.
`
`62. Plaintiff Walled Lake is a Head Start contractor that currently
`
`serves 48 Head Start students.
`
`63.
`
`It employs seven teachers/assistants, two office staff, seven
`
`special education staff, and six custodians who provide services or come in contact
`
`with Head Start classrooms and students.
`
`64. Walled Lake provides special education services and daily meals
`
`to Head Start students.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 01/20/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`65.
`
`If staff members quit or are terminated because of the Head Start
`
`Mandate, Walled Lake would be faced with significant harm. The loss of one special
`
`education staff would result in a reallocation of service models and potentially a
`
`program closure. The loss of one teacher or assistant would result in a program
`
`closure.
`
`66. Plaintiff Wayne-Westland is a Head Start grant recipient and
`
`operates eleven Head Start classrooms that currently serve 213 students with a
`
`maximum capacity of 224 students. Head Start funding pays for 32 Wayne-Westland
`
`staff members. Wayne-Westland also staffs 16 Head Start contractors who serve as
`
`custodians, social workers, kitchen staff, and speech teachers. An additional 26-30
`
`non-Head Start funded staff members have interaction with Head Start students
`
`when multiple classrooms share the gymnasium for indoor play time.
`
`67. The Head Start classrooms at Wayne-Westland provide a mix of
`
`full-day and half-day programming. Each full-day class is served breakfast, lunch
`
`and a snack. Each half-day program is served either breakfast and lunch or lunch and
`
`a snack.
`
`68. Wayne-Westland also provides family service workers for each
`
`family enrolled in Head Start. The family service workers help coordinate support
`
`services to the whole family, not just the children, by connecting families to
`
`resources and supporting them throughout the educational process.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 01/20/22 Page 14 of 32
`
`69. Wayne-Westland currently uses a number of COVID-19
`
`mitigation strategies to keep children, staff, and visitors safe. All toys and flat
`
`surfaces are cleaned regularly. Current health department recommendations,
`
`including wearing masks and practicing hand washing, are strictly followed. Wayne-
`
`Westland engages in contract tracing and has procedures in place to offer virtual
`
`learning if the report of a positive COVID-19 test requires a classroom to close for
`
`quarantine. Additionally, staff and families engage in daily wellness checks to
`
`ensure they are not sick when coming to class.
`
`70. The Head Start Mandate would have devastating impacts on
`
`Wayne-Westland. Every classroom must have two adults in it at all times, with a
`
`ratio of about one adult for every eight students. Currently, one classroom is already
`
`closed because Wayne-Westland has not been able to secure a qualified teacher.
`
`71. At least four unvaccinated staff, including the cook, have
`
`expressed their intention to leave their positions if required to get the vaccine, which
`
`would result in at least one classroom closure and the inability to provide meals to
`
`the students.
`
`72. With already one classroom closed as a result of the tight labor
`
`market and national teacher shortage, the threat posed by the Head Start Mandate is
`
`even more imminent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 01/20/22 Page 15 of 32
`
`73. Yasmina Vinci, Executive Director of the National Head Start
`
`Association (NHSA), authored a December 15, 2021 letter to Defendant Becerra
`
`detailing “the potential devastating effects the new rule on vaccines and masking
`
`will have on the children and families [Head Start] serves.” (Exhibit 2).
`
`74. According to the letter, a survey of Head Start grantees
`
`conducted by the NHSA to understand the potential impact of the Mandate showed
`
`that the Mandate can lead to Head Start programs losing between 46,614 and 72,422
`
`staff, or 18% to 26% of all staff, resulting in the closure of over 1,300 classrooms.
`
`75. According to the letter, comments shared during a December 10,
`
`2021 NHSA webinar with over 520 grantees and program administrators reveals that
`
`“[v]ital elements of the Head Start model—developmentally appropriate educational
`
`experiences, qualified and dedicated staff who have the children’s best interest at
`
`heart, and the opportunity for parents to be involved in their child’s education—will
`
`not be available for the children if classrooms are unable to operate because of the
`
`imposition of the new rule.”
`
`76. According to the letter, many programs are also at risk of closing
`
`because the children they serve rely on the school districts for bus transportation to
`
`and from the program, but transportation personnel is the least vaccinated group.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 01/20/22 Page 16 of 32
`
`Causes of Action
`Count I – The Head Start Mandate Exceeds Statutory Authority
` and Is Contrary to Law
`42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a); 5 U.S.C. § 706
`
`77. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding allegations.
`
`78. HHS is a creature of statute.
`
`79. Defendants assert that the Head Start Mandate is statutorily
`
`authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(1). See 86 Fed. Reg. at 68,052.
`
`80. Congress delegated to the Secretary the authority to “modify, as
`
`necessary, program performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start
`
`agencies and programs under this subchapter, including—…(C) administrative and
`
`financial management standards; (D) standards relating to the condition and location
`
`of facilities (including indoor air quality assessment standards, where appropriate)
`
`for such agencies and programs… [and] (E) such other standards as the Secretary
`
`finds to be appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(1)(C)-(E).
`
`81. The Head Start Mandate is not a modification of a performance
`
`standard.
`
`82.
`
`It is not related to administrative and financial management
`
`standards nor is it related to standards involving the condition and location of
`
`facilities.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 01/20/22 Page 17 of 32
`
`83. Likewise, Defendants’ authority under subsection (E) does not
`
`justify a mask and vaccination mandate because “‘such other’ standards fall under
`
`the banner of ‘performance standards’ and must be defined in relation to subsections
`
`(A)-(D).” Texas v. Becerra, 2021 WL 6198109, at *7.
`
`84. Agency action that is found to be “in excess of statutory
`
`jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right” must be held
`
`unlawful and set aside by the reviewing court. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
`
`85. Because Congress did not delegate to Defendants the authority
`
`to impose the vaccination requirement in the Head Start Mandate, the Mandate
`
`exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority and must be held unlawful.
`
`Count II – The Head Start Mandate Exceeds Statutory Authority
` and Is Contrary to Law
`42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a); 5 U.S.C. § 706
`
`86. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding allegations.
`
`87. The Mandate also exceeds the statutory authority because
`
`Defendants did not consult with the required experts.
`
`88. Prior to modifying a performance standard, the Secretary must
`
`“consult with experts in the fields of child development, early childhood education,
`
`child health care, family services (including linguistically and culturally appropriate
`
`services to non-English speaking children and their families), administration, and
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 01/20/22 Page 18 of 32
`
`financial management, and with persons with experience in the operation of Head
`
`Start programs.” 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(2)(A).
`
`89. The Secretary failed to consult with all of the required experts
`
`and instead only “consulted with experts in child health, including pediatricians, a
`
`pediatric infectious disease specialist, and the recommendations of the CDC and
`
`FDA.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 68,054.
`
`90. The Secretary must also take into consideration many factors
`
`prior to modifying a performance standard including the unique challenges faced by
`
`individual programs. 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(2)(B)(x).
`
`91.
`
`Instead of considering the unique challenges faced by individual
`
`programs, the Secretary issued a nationwide, one-size-fits-all mandate.
`
`92. Agency action that is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
`
`of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “in excess of statutory
`
`jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right” must be held
`
`unlawful and set aside by the reviewing court. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),(C).
`
`93. Because Defendants failed to consult with the required experts
`
`and consider the unique challenges faced by individual programs, the Head Start
`
`Mandate exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority, is not in accordance with the
`
`law, and must be held unlawful.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 01/20/22 Page 19 of 32
`
`Count III – The Head Start Mandate Exceeds Statutory Authority
` and Is Contrary to Law
`42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a); 5 U.S.C. § 706
`
`94. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding allegations.
`
`95. The Secretary is required to ensure that any revisions of
`
`standards will not result in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or
`
`types of health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or other
`
`required services provided under the standards. 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(2)(C).
`
`96. Enforcement of the Head Start Mandate will result in program
`
`and classroom closures due to staff shortages, thus reducing, and in some instances
`
`eliminating, services—the very thing that the Secretary is required to ensure does
`
`not occur.
`
`97. Agency action that is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
`
`of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “in excess of statutory
`
`jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right” must be held
`
`unlawful and set aside by the reviewing court. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),(C).
`
`98. Because the Head Start Mandate will result in an elimination or
`
`reduction of services, the Head Start Mandate exceeds the Secretary’s statutory
`
`authority, is not in accordance with the law, and must be held unlawful.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 01/20/22 Page 20 of 32
`
`Count IV – The Head Start Mandate Violates the
`APA’s Notice-and-Comment Requirement
`5 U.S.C. § 553; 5 U.S.C. § 706
`
`99. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding allegations.
`
`100. Under the APA, an agency must publish notice of a proposed rule
`
`in the Federal Register and give the public an opportunity to comment at least thirty
`
`days before the rule goes into effect. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(d).
`
`101. A good cause exception exists if the agency finds that the notice-
`
`and-comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.
`
`5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B).
`
`102. The agency’s “burden to show that good cause exists is a heavy
`
`one.” Texas v. Becerra, 2021 WL 6198109, at *13 (citing United States v. Cain, 583
`
`F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir. 2009)).
`
`103. Defendants did not satisfy their heavy burden.
`
`104. Defendants claim that they have good cause to waive the notice-
`
`and-comment requirement because “a vaccine requirement for Head Start staff,
`
`certain contractors, and volunteers is an essential component of the nation’s COVID-
`
`19 response” and “it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for
`
`[them] to undertake normal notice and comment procedures and to thereby delay the
`
`effective date of [the Mandate]. 86 Fed. Reg. at 68059.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 01/20/22 Page 21 of 32
`
`105. The Mandate was issued on November 30, 2021, which is 82
`
`days after President Biden’s September 9 announcement.
`
`106. The vaccination compliance deadline is set for January 31, 2022,
`
`62 days after the Mandate was issued.
`
`107. COVID-19 vaccines have been available for more than a year.
`
`108. Defendants had more than enough time to give the public an
`
`opportunity to comment before the Mandate went into effect.
`
`109. If Defendants had complied with that notice-and-comment
`
`procedure, they would have had to consider and address the irreparable harm
`
`claimed by Plaintiffs and other Head Start programs and the risk of widespread
`
`closures of Head Start classrooms that provide critical services to underprivileged
`
`children and their families.
`
`110. Defendants cannot satisfy their burden of showing good cause
`
`for violating the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.
`
`Count V – The Head Start Mandate is Arbitrary and Capricious
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
`
`111. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding allegations.
`
`112. Agency action that is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
`
`of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” must be held unlawful and
`
`set aside by the reviewing court. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 01/20/22 Page 22 of 32
`
`113. Defendants have not articulated a reasonable explanation for the
`
`Head Start Mandate.
`
`114. Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to
`
`consider a testing alternative to the vaccination requirement.
`
`115. Defendants also acted arbitrarily and capriciously because there
`
`is no evidence proving that “[e]nsuring Head Start staff are fully vaccinated
`
`significantly reduces the possibility of the program playing an unwitting part in
`
`community spread of SARS-CoV-2.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 68059.
`
`116. The evidence shows that being fully vaccinated against COVID-
`
`19 reduces the chance of hospitalization and death, but it does not prevent infection.
`
`Fully vaccinated people can and do get infected with COVID-19 and are capable of
`
`spreading it to others.
`
`117. Defendants ignored the CDC’s recommendation to consider
`
`other prevention strategies. According to the CDC, early childhood education and
`
`child care programs should consider multiple factors when making decisions about
`
`COVID-19 prevention strategies including the level of community transmission;
`
`COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the community and among children and staff;
`
`COVID-19 outbreaks or trends within the program and surrounding community;
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 01/20/22 Page 23 of 32
`
`strain on the community’s healthcare system; and the ages of the children and the
`
`feasibility of different prevention strategies.2
`
`118. According to the CDC, using multiple prevention strategies is the
`
`effective way to protect children and staff. Some prevention strategies include
`
`promoting vaccination, consistent mask use, physical distancing, COVID-19 testing,
`
`ventilation, handwashing, contact tracing, staying home when sick, cleaning, and
`
`disinfecting.3
`
`119. Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by skipping over
`
`all other prevention strategies and instead imposing mandatory vaccination.
`
`120. Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by creating a
`
`nationwide mandate
`
`instead of
`
`taking
`
`into account community-specific
`
`considerations.
`
`121. Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not considering
`
`a testing option in lieu of vaccination.
`
`122. Because HHS’s action in imposing the Head Start Mandate is
`
`arbitrary and capricious, the Mandate must be held unlawful and set aside.
`
`
`2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 Guidance for Operating
`Early Care and Education/Child Care Programs, (Nov. 10, 202), available at
`https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/child-
`care-guidance.html.
`3 Id.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-10127-NGE-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 01/20/22 Page 24 of 32
`
`Count VI – The Head Start Mandate Violates the Congressional Review Act
`5 U.S.C. § 801; 5 U.S.C. § 808
`
`123. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding allegations.
`
`124. The Head Start Mandate is a major rule that is subject to the
`
`Congressional Review Act.
`
`125. The Congressional Review Act defines a major rules as one that
`
`“is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
`
`(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal,
`
`State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant
`
`adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation,
`
`or on the ability of the United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
`
`enterprises in domestic and export markets.” 5 U.S.C. § 804 (2)(A)-(C).
`
`126. “The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office
`
`of Management and Budge

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket