## Facts

- A class of Indiana public school corporations receiving federal special-education funds challenged guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
- Assistant Secretary Robert R. Davila issued a letter responding to a state education official’s inquiry asking whether IDEA Part B requires continued educational services for disabled students expelled or suspended for extended periods for misconduct unrelated to their disability.
- The letter stated that IDEA Part B requires states and local districts to continue providing educational services to such students.
- The school district alleged the letter imposed substantial financial burdens and functioned as a new binding requirement adopted without Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class, held the letter was a legislative rule adopted in violation of APA § 553, and granted summary judgment to the school district.
- Davila, on behalf of the Department of Education, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether OSERS’s letter was a legislative rule subject to APA notice-and-comment requirements.
2. Whether the letter instead was an interpretive rule that merely stated the agency’s construction of IDEA Part B and therefore was exempt from APA § 553 procedures.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held the Davila letter announced OSERS’s construction of IDEA Part B and therefore was an interpretive rule.
- Because it was interpretive, the letter did not trigger APA notice-and-comment requirements.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Davila and the Department of Education.

## Legal Principles

- A legislative rule creates new law, rights, or duties and generally must be promulgated through APA notice-and-comment procedures.
- An interpretive rule explains or clarifies existing statutory or regulatory requirements and is exempt from APA notice-and-comment requirements under APA § 553.
- A court classifies agency guidance by its substance and function—whether it is tethered to statutory interpretation—rather than by the magnitude of its practical impact.
- Agencies administering a statute may issue interpretive guidance stating their understanding of statutory obligations without engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking, so long as the guidance does not impose obligations independent of the statute.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that OSERS’s letter requiring continued educational services for disabled students expelled or suspended for disability-unrelated misconduct was an interpretive statement of IDEA Part B’s meaning, not a legislative rule, and thus was not invalid for lack of APA notice-and-comment procedures.


Metropolitan Sch. Dist. of Wayne Twp. v. Davila, 969 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1992)