Citations
- 330 F. Supp. 3d 975
Full opinion text
WOLFSON, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs ASAH, Spectrum360, Verona, Spectrum360, Livingston, Michele Homa, the HollyDELL School, Hurffville ("HollyDELL"), and Maureen Grossi (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this case against Defendants the New Jersey Department of Education (the "Department" or "DOE"), Kimberly Harrington, in her official capacity as the Department's Commissioner of Education, Kevin Dahmer, in his official capacity as the Department's Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner in the Division of Finance, and Elise Sadler-Williams, in her official capacity as the Department's Planning Associate (collectively, "Defendants"), asserting various state and federal constitutional claims challenging the Department's regulations governing tuition reimbursement for approved private schools for students with disabilities. Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: (i) Defendants' Motion is granted, insofar as Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal claims, asserted in Counts One, Two, Three, and Five of the Amended Complaint; and (ii) because this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, Defendants' Motion is denied without prejudice as to those claims.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Before recounting the relevant factual background and procedural history of this case, I will briefly review the relevant statutory and regulatory context in which Plaintiffs' claims arise.
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. , each state that receives federal education funding must "ensure that disabled children receive a 'free appropriate public education' (FAPE)." Munir v. Pottsville Area Sch. Dist. , 723 F.3d 423, 425-26 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1) ); see H.E. v. Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter Sch. , 873 F.3d 406, 408 (3d Cir. 2017). The IDEA "protects the rights of disabled children by mandating that public educational institutions identify and effectively educate those children, or pay for their education elsewhere if they require specialized services that the public institution cannot provide." D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist. , 696 F.3d 233, 244 (3d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). To comply with the IDEA, "school districts must identify and evaluate all children who they have reason to believe are disabled under the statute." Munir , 723 F.3d at 426. To provide a FAPE, the school district must develop and administer an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for each student that is classified as eligible for special education. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark , 336 F.3d 260, 264 (3d Cir. 2003) ; see C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist. , 606 F.3d 59, 65 (3d Cir. 2010) ("The FAPE required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of the child by means of an [IEP]."). "An appropriate IEP must contain statements concerning a disabled child's level of functioning, set forth measurable annual achievement goals, describe the services to be provided, and establish objective criteria for evaluating the child's progress." Cape Henlopen , 606 F.3d at 65. While the school district is "not required to 'maximize the potential' " of each child, T.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ. , 205 F.3d 572, 577 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 197 n. 21, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) ), it "must offer an IEP that is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive meaningful educational benefits in light of the student's intellectual potential.' " Munir , 723 F.3d at 426 (quoting P.P. ex rel. Michael P. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist. , 585 F.3d 727, 730 (3d Cir. 2009) ).
New Jersey has adopted a host of regulations that are designed to fulfill the state's responsibilities under the IDEA. P.N. v. Greco , 282 F.Supp.2d 221, 234 (D.N.J. 2003). In relevant part, each school district in New Jersey is obligated "to provide suitable facilities and programs of education for all the children who are classified as children with disabilities." N.J.S.A. § 18A:46-13. "A school district that is unable to deliver those required services, in full or in part, may satisfy its obligation by sending the special-needs student to a facility or program approved by the Department," such as Spectrum360, Verona, Spectrum360, Livingston (collectively, "Spectrum360"), or HollyDELL. Youth Consultation Serv., Inc. v. New Jersey State Dep't of Educ. , No. A-4336-06T1, 2008 WL 794573, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2008) ; see N.J.S.A. § 18A:46-14(g). As the Court explains, infra , these approved private schools for students with disabilities ("APSSDs") are "authorized to charge the sending districts for the cost of tuition for each child sent to their schools; however, the calculation of the tuition rates is strictly regulated." Windsor Learning Ctr., Inc. v. New Jersey State Dep't of Educ., Office of Compliance , No. A-2197-06T1, 2008 WL 113992, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 3, 2008).
Private schools that seek to contract with public schools to accept students with disabilities on a tuition basis must first be approved by the Department. See N.J.S.A. § 18A:46-15 ; N.J.A.C. § 6A:14-7.2. As part of the approval process, APSSDs must submit an affidavit attesting that they will comply with, inter alia , the IDEA and all applicable New Jersey statutes and regulations, including those governing tuition reimbursement. See N.J.A.C. § 6A:14-7.2(a)(3). To receive students with disabilities from a sending district, APSSDs are required to enter into a mandated form tuition contract (the "Tuition Contract") with the sending district. N.J.A.C. § 6A:14-7.8(b) ("The district board of education shall establish a written contract for each student with a disability it places in a program approved under this subchapter.... For students placed in an [APSSD], the district board of education shall use the mandated tuition contract according to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-16 through 22."); N.J.S.A. § 6A:23A-18.5(a)(13). Here, the Tuition Contract provides, in relevant part, as follows:
3. ... The SENDING DISTRICT and APPROVED PRIVATE SCHOOL agree to comply with all the requirements promulgated by the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education, as applicable.
4. Tuition charges, as part of this AGREEMENT, as well as the payment of the same shall be made in accordance with the applicable New Jersey Statutes and the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education.
Amended Verified Complaint ("Am. Compl."), Ex. A at ¶¶ 3-4.
As noted, APSSD tuition reimbursement is governed by New Jersey law and the Department's regulations. Specifically, New Jersey law provides that the tuition rates charged by APSSDs cannot "exceed the actual cost per pupil as determined under rules prescribed by the commissioner and approved by the State Board of Education." N.J.S.A. § 18A:46-21 ; see N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(a) ("The board of directors of an APSSD ... shall determine the final tuition rate charged to be an amount less than or equal to the certified actual cost per student as determined by an independent school auditor."). To ensure compliance with this statutory requirement, the Department has promulgated a set of administrative regulations that "establish requirements for accounting, financial reporting, and tuition rate setting by [APSSDs]." N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.1, et seq. In the case at bar, Plaintiffs challenge the Department's enforcement of these regulations governing APSSD tuition reimbursement.
As an initial matter, the Department's rules define "actual costs per student," in relevant part, as "the actual allowable cost for the entire school year," N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.2, and state that APSSDs "may charge one tuition rate per school location for the school year." N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(b). When determining the actual allowable costs for the program, APSSDs must ensure that the costs are:
i. Based on all costs required for student instruction from July 1 through June 30;
ii. Consistent with the students' [IEPs];
iii. Inclusive of all costs required to implement all students' IEPs and all related services, except as set forth in [ N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(a)(5) ];
iv. Reasonable, that is, ordinary and necessary and not in excess of the cost that would be incurred by an ordinarily prudent person in the administration of public funds; and v. Based on goods actually received and placed in service and/or services rendered in the fiscal year expensed.
N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(a)(1). The regulations further provide that, with the exception of extraordinary services, APSSDs "shall provide required related services in the scope of services rendered pursuant to the tuition contract and may not bill the sending district board of education separately for related services that are required by a student's initial or any subsequent IEP with limited exception." N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(a)(5) (emphasis added). In short, with the exception of extraordinary services, which are billed separately, an APSSD must include the cost of all services necessary to implement a student's IEP in the tuition rate charged to the sending district. See N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(a).
As a condition for their continued approval to accept students from sending districts, APSSDs must submit audited financial statements for the Department's review. N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.10(a). As part of this process, the APSSD must "ensure the audited financial statements reflect the certified actual cost(s) per student as determined by an independent auditor and final tuition rate(s) charged at the end of the school year as determined by the APSSD's management." N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.10(c). Failure to comply with the audit requirement may result in the APSSD being placed on conditional approval status. N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.10(j).
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint challenges both the Department's regulations that were in place prior to July 3, 2017 (the "Prior Regulations"), as well as the regulations that went into effect after July 3, 2017 (the "July 2017 Regulations"). The Prior Regulations provided that if the APSSD paid a salary for certain positions that exceeded the salary maximum set forth in (prior) N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.2(o ), the excess was a non-allowable cost, which could not be included in calculating tuition. N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.5(a)(8)-(9). The Prior Regulations further provided that an APSSD's allowable salary costs had to conform to "the list of maximum allowable salaries by job title and county according to the job titles contained in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B." N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.2(o ). Except for administrative job titles, maximum allowable salaries were based on the highest contracted salary in the prior year for the same job title and county. Id.
On July 3, 2017, the New Jersey State Board of Education amended the regulations governing the maximum allowable salary rates that APSSDs could include in the costs of tuition. Specifically, although the July 2017 Regulations set the maximum salary rate for each position as they were determined under the Prior Regulations, N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(o )(1), they also provide exceptions for the positions of occupational therapist, physical therapist, and speech and language specialist (the "Relevant Positions") at issue in this case. In that regard, the July 2017 Regulations provide, in relevant part, as follows:
(o) An APSSD shall reference as guidance the Commissioner-published list of maximum allowable salaries by job title and county, according to the job titles contained in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B relevant to APSSDs. Except for administrative job titles referenced in (p) below, maximum allowable salaries are based on the highest contracted salaries (not including payment of unused sick and vacation days and severance pay) of certified staff by job title in a district board of education for any prior year, indexed by the average increase in salary between the two preceding school years for each job title. The salaries are based on a 12-month contract period from July 1 through June 30 and the maximum allowable salary of an APSSD staff member shall be prorated for staff employed for less than 12 months. Under no circumstances shall the maximum allowable salary calculated be less than the corresponding salary in the prior year for the same job title and county. Unrecognized job titles shall be correlated to similar job titles in public schools based on their functional activities. The maximum allowable salary of a staff member holding a part-time or split-time position shall be prorated including the salary of staff employed in entities defined in (e) and (f) above.
1. Effective July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2024, maximum allowable salaries pursuant to (o) above shall be published at the rates contained in the maximum allowable salary list published for the 2016-2017 school year, with the following exceptions:
i. Beginning July 1, 2017, the maximum published salaries for the job titles of occupational therapist, physical therapist, and speech and language specialist shall increase annually from the 2016-2017 published list of maximum allowable salaries by CPI determined consistent with N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-45 ;
ii. Beginning July 1, 2017, the Commissioner, or his or her designee, shall publish a maximum allowable salaries list that contains the total maximum hourly rate for occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech and language specialists contracted by APSSDs as purchased service providers or independent contractors. The published total hourly rates shall include an allowance of 35 percent more than the maximum allowable salary rate calculated and published pursuant to [ (o)(1)(i) ] above for the same job titles. The total maximum hourly rates shall be applicable only to contracted service providers.
iii. Beginning July 1, 2017, an APSSD may contract with an approved clinic and agency pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-5.1(c) and 5.2 and may pay the approved clinic or agency for the contracted services at a rate above the maximum allowable salary published rate detailed in (o) above, so long as the APSSD:
(1) Acquires quotes for the contracted services from at least three approved clinics or agencies prior to contracting with an approved clinic or agency. If any of the three approved clinics or agencies are a related party, the APSSD shall contract with the lowest of the three quotes; and
(2) Provides documentation of the three quotes required by [ (o)(1)(iii)(1) ] above to the Department upon request.
N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(o ). Finally, under the July 2017 Regulations, APSSDs can request that the Commissioner of Education approve a salary higher than the maximum allowable salary for "no more than two APSSD employees in any fiscal year in which the APSSD demonstrates, to the Commissioner's or his or her designee's satisfaction, the maximum allowable salary is inadequate and would cause a hardship to the APSSD." N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.3(r).
B. The Parties
ASAH is a not-for-profit organization, comprised of approximately 160 private schools and agencies in New Jersey. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 48-49. Spectrum360 and HollyDELL are APSSDs. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3, 5. Michele Homa is an occupational therapist and the co-owner of AJL Therapy for Kids ("AJL"), a New Jersey entity that provides occupational therapy services to public and private students, including students attending Spectrum360. Id. at ¶ 4. Maureen Grossi is a physical therapist at HollyDELL. Id. at ¶ 6.
The New Jersey Department of Education is a state agency that administers state and federal programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and non-public elementary and secondary school children in New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 6. Kimberly Harrington is the Department's Commissioner of Education. Id. at ¶ 8. Kevin Dahmer is the Department's Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner in the Division of Finance. Id. at ¶ 9. Elise Sadler-Williams is the Department's Planning Associate. Id. at ¶ 10.
C. Plaintiffs' Claims
According to the Amended Complaint, prior to June 2015, the Department had a decades-long practice of permitting APSSDs "to obtain full reimbursement for related-services [provided to students with disabilities], provided that the related-services were administered in fulfillment of students' IEPs and were provided by qualified employees or approved agencies." Id. at ¶ 85. Plaintiffs allege that the Department also permitted sending districts to send their own staff to assist APSSDs in providing related services to students with disabilities, without charge to these APSSDs. See id. at ¶ 86. Plaintiffs further allege that APSSDs, such as Spectrum360 and HollyDELL, relied on the Department's practice of permitting full reimbursement in annually acquiring related services at an amount sufficient to fulfill the requirements of students' IEPs. See id. at ¶ 87.
On June 16, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum entitled, "Private Schools for Students with Disabilities Costs for Related Services" (the "June Memorandum"), which states:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Education that some [APSSDs] are charging sending districts separately for related services, or requiring districts to provide their own related services staff to implement IEPs. Department regulations require [APSSDs] to include the costs of special education related services in their tuition rates and that they can only charge separately for one-to-one aides for students ....
...
Therefore, the [APSSDs] must immediately cease this practice and ensure that all educational and related services are delivered, as specified in the students' IEPs.
Am. Compl., Ex. B.
On February 9, 2016, the Department issued a follow up memorandum (the "February Memorandum") that addressed frequently asked questions regarding the June Memorandum. See id. at Ex. C. After setting forth the definitions of extraordinary services under N.J.A.C. § 6A:23A-18.1 and related services under N.J.A.C. § 6A:14-1.3 and 3.9, the February Memorandum provides, in pertinent part:
3. Who pays for the cost of related services in an [IEP] for a student placed in an APSSD?
For students placed in APSSDs, the cost of all related services within an IEP must be included in the tuition rate. See N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.2(a)1 and 18.2(a)5. The APSSDs shall not charge sending districts separately for related services that are required by a student's IEP. An APSSD shall only charge separately for extraordinary services .... All other services shall be included as part of the tuition rate.
By way of example, if a student enrolled in an APSSD has an IEP that requires counseling services twice per week individually, the APSSD must implement the IEP to ensure that the required counseling services are provided. The cost for the provision of the counseling services, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a), shall be included in the calculation of the certified actual cost per student and final tuition rate charged to sending districts. The APSSD cannot separately bill the sending district for any IEP required services other than extraordinary services ....
...
5. What if the related service(s) contained in a student's IEP are unique and/or need to be provided after school hours?
Given the nature of related services and the broad definition within the IDEA, it is possible that an IEP may require the provision of uncommon or unique related services. The type of related service must be clearly delineated in the IEP. Additionally, some related services may need to be provided after hours if required by a student's IEP.
The APSSD must determine whether it can provide the related service(s) detailed in the student's IEP. If it can, the cost of same must be included within the tuition rate for the sending district. If the APSSD cannot provide the service, the APSSD must immediately notify the sending district that the student will need to be placed elsewhere because it cannot provide the required service(s).
...
12. Can the APSSD pay more than the maximum salary for related service providers?
No, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)8 and 9, staff members or consultants cannot be paid in excess of the applicable maximum allowable salary.
Id. at 1-3.
Plaintiffs allege that the Department "announced a reversal of its prior practices" through the June Memorandum and the February Memorandum (collectively, the "Memoranda"), and that "[t]his reversal occurred at the end of the 2014-15 school year - after IEPs had been developed for the 2015-16 school year, after [APSSDs] had admitted students in reliance on the [Department's] past permissions regarding [the] related-service provision, and after [APSSDs] had already established their budgets for the coming 2015-16 school year." Am. Compl. ¶¶ 91-92. Additionally, despite this alleged reversal of practice, Plaintiffs aver that the Department nonetheless "required [APSSDs] to provide all mandated IEP services - without the use of district personnel and without billing districts separately in order to afford the services." Id. at ¶ 93. In short, Plaintiffs allege that the Department "abruptly increased the amount of related-services [that APSSDs] would be required to provide directly, while limiting the funds [APSSDs] might use to purchase the services." Id. at ¶ 95.
According to the Amended Complaint, the alleged reversal in the Department's policies regarding tuition reimbursement for APSSDs resulted in a myriad of consequences for both APSSDs and related service providers. With respect to HollyDELL and Ms. Grossi, Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Department's "decision to enforce its unlawful maximum salary," HollyDELL could not give Ms. Grossi an annual increase in salary. Id. at ¶ 104. Plaintiffs further allege that, in order to maintain Ms. Grossi's income for the 2015-16 school year, HollyDELL "was forced to increase Ms. Grossi's hours from 27 per week to 32 per week, while reducing her hourly rate from $80.39 to $68.38." Id. at ¶ 105. Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Grossi's plans for retirement have been delayed as a result of these salary limitations. Id. at ¶ 108. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that an experienced occupational therapist declined HollyDELL's offer of employment, because her "then-current rate for services exceeded the maximum salary permitted by the DOE." Id. at ¶ 112. Plaintiffs further allege that, although HollyDELL eventually filled the occupational therapist position, due to the salary limitations imposed by the Department, it was forced to hire a recent graduate with little experience. Id. at ¶ 113.
Plaintiffs also assert that the Department's salary restrictions adversely affected Spectrum360 and its related service providers, including Ms. Homa. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Spectrum360 had to adjust its speech therapists' salaries to comply with the Department's maximum allowable salary for speech language therapists in Essex County during the 2014-2015 school year, $74 per hour, which was "far below market value and far below what public entities servicing students with special needs are permitted to spend on speech language services." Id. at ¶¶ 114-18. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that one Spectrum360 student needed a highly specialized feeding therapy, and that the speech therapist who was qualified to provide that service had an hourly rate of $180 per hour. See id. at ¶¶ 119-120. According to the Amended Complaint, although Spectrum360 was able to obtain the specialized therapy for $130 per hour, the arrangement still exceeded the Department's maximum allowable salary by $50 per hour. Id. at ¶ 121. Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that Spectrum360 was unable to acquire physical and occupational therapy services for less than $88 per hour during the 2014-2015 school year, which exceeded the Department's maximum of $72 per hour for Essex County and was "far below market value and far below what public entities servicing students with special needs are permitted to spend on physical and occupational therapy services." Id. at ¶¶ 124-27. In total, Plaintiffs allege that, as of June 2016, Spectrum360 "stood to lose almost $150,000 for related-service costs in excess of the DOE's maximum." Id. at ¶ 139.
With respect to AJL and Ms. Homa, the Amended Complaint alleges that, prior to the Department's Memoranda, AJL's occupational and physical therapists generally earned $88-95 per hour from APSSDs, as compared to $95-150 hourly from public entity schools servicing students with disabilities. See id. at ¶¶ 127-28. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Department's maximum salary restrictions, AJL was forced to reduce the rates of all of its therapists and implement a salary freeze. See id. at ¶¶ 129-30. According to the Amended Complaint, AJL anticipates that it may lose two experienced therapists as a result of the salary reduction and freeze and does not anticipate being able to replace those therapists with other experienced therapists at the lower rate. Id. at ¶¶ 131-32.
Plaintiffs further allege that, despite the change in the Department's treatment of maximum salaries for related service providers - as reflected in the enactment of N.J.A.C. § 6A:23-18(o )(1) - the Department "has continued to enforce the terms of its challenged [M]emoranda and the challenged regulations in financial audits for the 2014-15 school year."Id. at ¶¶ 147-48. Plaintiffs also aver that "the new regulations have done nothing to eliminate the inequities between [APSSD] and public school related-service cost limitations." Id. at ¶ 150.
Based on these allegations, the Amended Complaint asserts eight claims against Defendants. Count One asserts that Defendants discriminated against APSSDs and their affiliates, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by: (i) requiring Plaintiffs to adhere to the Department's Memoranda and regulations; (ii) prohibiting APSSDs from being able to procure identical related services for students with disabilities at the same rate as public entities; and (iii) prohibiting APSSD related service providers from receiving the same compensation as service providers for public schools. See id. at ¶¶ 151-56. In connection with Count One, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Memoranda and the Department's regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause, as well as an order "permitting [APSSDs] to procure related-services at any rate and amount necessary to implement students' [IEPs] or permitting [APSSDs] to procure related-services in amounts and at rates equal to public entity schools." Id. at 24.
In Count Two, Plaintiffs raise a procedural due process claim, alleging that Defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the Department "reversed its position regarding the enforcement of maximum salaries for related-service providers and its requirement that related-services be provided directly by [APSSDs], absent notice and opportunity to be heard." Id. at ¶¶ 158-161. In connection with Count Two, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Department's actions amounted to a taking of Plaintiffs' liberty and property without due process of law, and thus, request an order invalidating the Memoranda "and the restraints imposed therein." Id. at 25.
In Count Three, Plaintiffs assert a related substantive due process claim, alleging that Defendants deprived Plaintiffs "of economic liberty via unlawful contract and compensation limitations." Id. at ¶¶ 163-66. In connection with Count Three, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Memoranda, the Prior Regulations, and the July 2017 Regulations violate the Due Process Clause, and request the entry of an order: (i) "establishing that [APSSD] related-service providers may contract for compensation at market rate or for any rate allowed for related-service providers servicing disabled students in public entity schools"; (ii) "establishing that work hours for [APSSD] related-service providers may not be reduced or increased to meet any maximum salary amount determined by the [DOE]"; and (iii) "granting [APSSD] related-service providers compensation for any sums to which they were previously entitled, but for the imposition of the [DOE's] salary limitation." Id. at 26-27.
In Count Four, Plaintiffs allege that by causing "municipalities and school boards to remove, or seek to remove, disabled students from their appropriate placements at [APSSDs] based on related-service provision and associated costs," the Department has deprived these students of a thorough and efficient education, in violation of Article VIII, Section IV of the New Jersey Constitution. Id. at ¶¶ 167-71. In connection with Count Four, Plaintiffs seek a "declaration that local municipalities and school board may not insist that students be removed from appropriate [APSSDs] or forfeit their related-services in order to remain."Id. at 28.
In Count Five, Plaintiffs assert a claim for "unconstitutional impairment of contracts" under Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and Article IV, Section 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, alleging that: (i) Defendants "mandated the form of contract that [APSSDs] must utilize in accepting students with disabilities for their respective districts"; (ii) "[t]hese contracts require [APSSDs] to ensure students' receipt of all related-services ... prescribed by their IEPs"; and (iii) that Defendants, "by way of [the] maximum salary imposition, [have] simultaneously impaired [APPSDs'] ability to meet related-service requirements in accordance with students' mandated tuition contracts." Id. at ¶¶ 172-76. In connection with Count Five, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Department's maximum salary requirements "unconstitutionally impaired [APSSDs'] related-service obligations under their mandated tuition contracts," and, accordingly, request an order "invaliding maximum salary requirements for [APSSD] related-service providers." Id. at 29.
In Count Six, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the mandatory rule-making procedures set forth under the New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act ("NJAPA"), N.J.S.A. § 54:14B-1, et seq. , by reversing the Department's practice of permitting APSSDs to receive full reimbursement for the costs of related services and allowing sending districts to have their own staff provide related services to students in APSSDs. Id. at ¶¶ 177-81. In connection with Count Six, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants violated the NJAPA and an order invalidating the Department's Memoranda. Id. at 30.
In Counts Seven and Eight, Spectrum360 and HollyDELL, respectively, assert standalone claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Department's enforcement of its maximum salary limitations prevents Spectrum360 and HollyDELL from honoring their legal obligation to implement students' IEPs. See id. at ¶¶ 182-85. In connection with those claims, Spectrum360 and HollyDELL seek declarations that the Department's regulations prevent them from fulfilling their legal obligations under the IDEA. Id. at 31-32. Spectrum360 also seeks an order compelling the Department to permit Spectrum360 "to receive full payment for all of its related-service expenses incurred in implementing students' IEPs using approved agencies and/or qualified personnel." Id. at 31.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 30, 2016, ASAH, the Children's Institute ("TCI"), Ms. Homa and Grossi, HollyDELL, B.R. on behalf of M.R., and S.D. on behalf of W.D., commenced this action against the Department, asserting the following claims: (i) Count One-violation of the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; (ii) Count Two-violation of the right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (iii) Count Three-violation of the right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (iv) Count Four-violation of the IDEA; (v) Count Five-violation of the right to a thorough and efficient education under the New Jersey Constitution; (vi) Count Six-impairment of contract under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions; and (vii) Count Seven-violation of the NJAPA. See ASAH v. New Jersey Dep't of Educ. , No. 16-3935, 2017 WL 2829648, at *6 (D.N.J. June 30, 2017). Additionally, TCI, HollyDELL, and B.R. asserted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and B.R. and S.D. asserted claims for attorneys' fees under the IDEA. See id.
On November 4, 2016, the Department moved to dismiss the original Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 8. On June 30, 2017, this Court issued an Opinion and entered a corresponding Order dismissing the original Complaint. ECF Nos. 17-18. Specifically, this Court found, first, that, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, the Department was immune from the federal claims asserted in Counts One, Two, Three, and Six. See ASAH , 2017 WL 2829648 at *8. Second, the Court dismissed ASAH as a plaintiff because it lacked either organizational or associational standing. See id. at *8-9. Third, this Court dismissed Counts Four and Eleven for lack of standing on the ground that the students failed to allege a future injury that was imminent. See id. at *10-11. Finally, the Court dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief asserted in Counts Eight, Nine, and Ten, because such claims are not cognizable causes of action in the Third Circuit. See id. at *12. Nonetheless, the Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the claims asserted in Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven to assert claims against individual state officials. Id.
On October 2, 2017, Plaintiffs, with the exception of the parents of the individual students and TCI, filed the Amended Complaint, naming as Defendants the Department, as well as Harrington, Dahmer, and Sadler-Williams (collectively, the "State Officials") in their official capacities. ECF No. 23. As noted, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Department's regulations violated their federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and contract, their state rights under New Jersey's corollary to the Contracts Clause, the thorough and efficient education clause of the New Jersey Constitution, and under the NJAPA. See id. Spectrum360 and HollyDELL also asserted separate stand-alone claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 28. That Motion has been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 31, 33.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). "A motion to dismiss for want of standing is ... properly brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because standing is a jurisdictional matter." Ballentine v. United States , 486 F.3d 806, 810 (3d Cir. 2007) ; see St. Thomas-St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass'n v. Gov't of the U.S. Virgin Islands , 218 F.3d 232, 240 (3d Cir. 2000) ("The issue of standing is jurisdictional."). "On a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing, and each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e. , with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Ballentine , 486 F.3d at 810 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the reviewing court must first determine whether the motion "presents a 'facial' attack or a 'factual' attack on the claim at issue, because that distinction determines how the pleading must be reviewed." Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele , 757 F.3d 347, 357 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action , 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012) ). "A facial 12(b)(1) challenge, which attacks the complaint on its face without contesting its alleged facts, is like a 12(b)(6) motion in requiring the court to 'consider the allegations of the complaint as true.' " Hartig Drug Co. Inc. v. Senju Pharm. Co. , 836 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States , 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (observing that in reviewing a facial challenge, which contests the sufficiency of the pleadings, "the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."). A factual challenge, on the other hand, "attacks allegations underlying the assertion of jurisdiction in the complaint, and it allows the defendant to present competing facts." Hartig Drug Co. , 836 F.3d at 268. The "trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case" and "the plaintiff will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." Petruska v. Gannon Univ. , 462 F.3d 294, 302 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977) ). "Therefore, a 12(b)(1) factual challenge strips the plaintiff of the protections and factual deference provided under 12(b)(6) review." Hartig Drug Co. , 836 F.3d at 268.
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside , 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) does not require that a complaint contain detailed factual allegations, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). Thus, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to raise a plaintiff's right to relief above the speculative level, so that a claim "is plausible on its face." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny , 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). While the "plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' ... it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.
In accordance with the pleading requirements set forth in Twombly and Iqbal , the Third Circuit has formulated "a three-step process for district courts to follow in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint." Robinson v. Family Dollar Inc. , 679 F. App'x 126, 131 (3d Cir. 2017) ; Santiago v. Warminster Twp. , 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the reviewing court "must take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp. , 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Next, the court "should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Finally, "when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). This last step of the plausibility analysis is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
IV. DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for three reasons. First, Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional claims are barred under the Eleventh Amendment doctrine of sovereign immunity, and that no exceptions to immunity exist. Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' challenges to the Department's July 2017 Regulations are not justiciable, because Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege the existence of an actual and imminent threat of future harm, as required under the doctrines of standing and ripeness. Third, Defendants argue that even if this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits. Because Plaintiffs' sovereign immunity and justiciability arguments implicate this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will address those arguments before turning to Defendants' non-jurisdictional bases for dismissal. See Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp. , 549 U.S. 422, 430-31, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) ) ("[A] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction ....").
A. Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." U.S. CONST. amend. XI. "Under the Eleventh Amendment, 'an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by [its] own citizens.' " Hyatt v. Cty. of Passaic , 340 F. App'x 833, 836 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) ). Importantly for this case, the Eleventh Amendment protects not only states, but also state agencies and state officials acting in their official capacities, "as long as the state is the real party in interest." Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. , 873 F.2d 655, 659 (3d Cir. 1989) ; see Shahin v. Delaware , 563 F. App'x 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2014) ("A suit against the States, their agencies, and their employees acting in an official capacity is also barred, because it is merely another way of pleading an action against the state."); Hyatt , 340 F. App'x at 836 ("Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to state entities and officials if 'the state is the real, substantial party in interest.' ") (citation omitted). "The party asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity 'bears the burden of proving its applicability.' " Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr. , 621 F.3d 249, 254 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Christy v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm'n , 54 F.3d 1140, 1144 (3d Cir. 1995) ).
As noted, the Eleventh Amendment bars not only suits against states themselves, "but also suits for damages against 'arms of the State'-entities that, by their very nature, are so intertwined with the State that any suit against them renders the State the 'real, substantial party in interest.' " Maliandi v. Montclair State Univ. , 845 F.3d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). To determine whether a suit against a state entity is actually a suit against the state itself, the Third Circuit has directed courts to consider the following three factors: "(1) the source of the money that would pay for the judgment; (2) the status of the entity under state law; and (3) the entity's degree of autonomy." Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Prob. & Parole , 551 F.3d 193, 198 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Fitchik , 873 F.2d at 659 ). While the Third Circuit historically placed primacy on the first factor - the state-treasury factor, the court "recalibrated the factors in light of the Supreme Court's observation in Regents of the University of California v. Doe , 519 U.S. 425, 431, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997), that an Eleventh Amendment inquiry should not be a 'formalistic question of ultimate financial liability.' " Maliandi , 845 F.3d at 84 (quoting Regents , 519 U.S. at 431, 117 S.Ct. 900 ). Accordingly, each of the three factors is now "considered 'co-equal,' and 'on the same terms, ... with courts determining and then weighing the qualitative strength of each individual factor in the unique factual circumstances at issue." Karns v. Shanahan , 879 F.3d 504, 513-14 (3d Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted).
Here, in arguing that the Department must be dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, Defendants note that the Court already found that the Department was entitled to sovereign immunity in its June 30, 2017 Opinion. See Defs.' Br. at 14. Indeed, in my prior decision, I rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the exception to sovereign immunity set forth in Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) applied to the Department, and thus, found that the Department was entitled to sovereign immunity. See ASAH , 2017 WL 2829648 at *7-8. And, in response to the instant Motion, Plaintiffs fail to present any new arguments as to why the Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, my finding that the Department is entitled to sovereign immunity stands, and thus, Plaintiffs' federal claims are dismissed as to the Department.
The Court's finding that Department is entitled to sovereign immunity does not end the inquiry, however, because in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert federal claims against the State Officials in their official capacities. In the context of sovereign immunity, actions against state officers are subject to a slightly different standard than actions against state entities. Specifically, while suits against a non-consenting state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, under the Supreme Court's holding in Ex parte Young , "a private plaintiff may sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief to end ongoing violations of federal law." Williams by & through Bookbinder v. Connolly , No. 17-3569, 734 Fed.Appx. 813, 816, 2018 WL 1377775, at *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2018) ; Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 730 F.3d 291, 318 (3d Cir. 2013). "The theory behind [ Ex parte Young ] is that a state officer lacks the authority to enforce an unconstitutional state enactment, and thus the officer is 'stripped of his official or representative character and becomes subject to the consequences of his individual conduct.' " Christ the King , 730 F.3d at 318 (quoting Pennsylvania Fed'n of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc. v. Hess , 297 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Cir. 2002) ). Significantly, plaintiffs filing suit against state officials under Ex parte Young "may not be awarded damages or other forms of retroactive relief." Christ the King , 730 F.3d at 318 ; see Kentucky v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 169, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (concluding that the Eleventh Amendment barred an official capacity action for damages); Edelman , 415 U.S. at 676-78, 94 S.Ct. 1347 (holding that a suit against state official for retroactive monetary relief, which requires payment of funds from state treasury, is barred by Eleventh Amendment). Instead, "their remedies are limited to those that are 'designed to end a continuing violation of federal law.' " Christ the King , 730 F.3d at 318 (quoting Green v. Mansour , 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985) ).
This "bar on retroactive relief includes forms of equitable relief that are functionally equivalent to damage awards." Christ the King , 730 F.3d at 319 ; see Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 697 (3d Cir. 1996) ("[R]elief that essentially serves to compensate a party injured in the past by the action of a state official, even though styled as something else, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment."). For example, in Edelman , the plaintiff, individually and as a representative of a class, asserted that state officials were improperly administering benefits under a federal-state aid program, and sought, inter alia , declaratory and injunctive relief to award the class of plaintiffs all benefits that were wrongfully withheld. 415 U.S. at 655-56, 94 S.Ct. 1347. At both the trial and appellate levels, the courts rejected the officials' argument that the Eleventh Amendment barred the award of retroactive benefits, and granted the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. Id. at 657-58, 94 S.Ct. 1347.
In reversing the Court of Appeals' finding that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the portion of the District Court's order that required a retroactive payment of benefits, the Edelman Court explained that although "the Court of Appeals described this retroactive award of monetary relief as a form of 'equitable restitution,' it is in practical effect indistinguishable in many aspects from an award of damages against the State." Id. at 668, 94 S.Ct. 1347. In so holding, the Court contrasted the relief sought by the plaintiff from the prospective relief sought in Ex parte Young and similar cases. See id. at 664-68, 94 S.Ct. 1347. Specifically, the Court observed that the prospective relief sought in those cases - requiring only that state officials conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law - would have an "ancillary effect on the state treasury." Id. at 668, 94 S.Ct. 1347. Conversely, the Court found that a retroactive award of benefits in the plaintiff's favor would have required the payment of a substantial amount of money from the state treasury, "not as a necessary consequence of compliance in the future with a substantive federal-question determination, but as a form of compensation" that would be "measured in terms of a monetary loss resulting from a past breach of a legal duty on the part of the defendant state officials." Id. Accordingly, because such an award "resemble[d] far more closely the monetary award against the State itself ... than it [did] the prospective injunctive relief awarded in Ex parte Young ," id. at 665, 94 S.Ct. 1347 (internal citation omitted), the Court found that the plaintiff's request for retroactive benefits was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 668, 678, 94 S.Ct. 1347.
Following Edelman , the label given to a plaintiff's requested relief "is of no importance" and courts "look to the substance rather than the form of the relief requested to determine whether [the plaintiff's] claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment." Blanciak , 77 F.3d at 698. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar relief that serves primarily "to bring an end to a present, continuing violation of federal law," with only an "ancillary effect" on the state's treasury. Christ the King , 730 F.3d at 319 (citation and quotation marks omitted). However, when an action " 'is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants.' " Edelman , 415 U.S. at 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Dep't of Treasury of Indiana , 323 U.S. 459, 464, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945) ).
Here, Defendants raise two sovereign immunity arguments with respect to the State Officials. First, Defendants argue that under Ex parte Young and its progeny, Plaintiffs' request in Count Three (Plaintiffs' substantive due process claim) - seeking an "Order granting [APSSD] related-service providers compensation for any sums to which they were previously entitled" - must be dismissed, because it is akin to a request for retroactive monetary damages. Second, Defendants contend that each of Plaintiffs' federal claims should be dismissed, because Ex parte Young only provides an exception to sovereign immunity for claims seeking injunctive relief to remedy a continuing violation of federal law, and "Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts showing that there is indeed an ongoing violation of federal law." Pls.' Br. at 16.
With respect to Defendants' first argument, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs' request in Count Three - seeking an "Order granting [APSSD] related-service providers compensation for any sums to which they were previously entitled" - must be dismissed, because such an award would more closely approximate an award of retroactive monetary damages than prospective injunctive relief. Accordingly, that request is stricken from Count Three as barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that the State Officials are not entitled to immunity with respect to the remainder of Plaintiffs' federal claims. Specifically, contrary to Defendants' assertion, Plaintiffs do allege that Department's enforcement of its APSSD tuition reimbursement regulations amounts to a violation of federal law, and thus, that Defendants should be enjoined from continued enforcement of the same. For the purposes of the Ex parte Young exception, Plaintiffs need not establish that Defendants' conduct is, in fact, unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to Defendants' other arguments for dismissing Plaintiffs' federal claims.
B. Justiciability of Plaintiffs' Challenges to the Department's July 2017 Regulations
Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims challenging the July 2017 Regulations should be dismissed for lack of standing and because those claims are not ripe for judicial review. Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the July 2017 Regulations pose an imminent threat of future harm, and thus, that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the Article III requirement of injury in fact. Relatedly, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' claims challenging the July 2017 Regulations are not ripe, because Plaintiffs have not alleged a non-speculative threat of future harm. See Defs.' Br. at 20 ("Whether Plaintiffs have standing or their claims are ripe both turn on whether the threat of future harm is sufficient to constitute a cognizable injury."). Because Plaintiffs' standing and ripeness arguments boil down to the same question in this case, the Court will address standing and ripeness in tandem. See Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Attorney Gen. United States , 825 F.3d 149, 167 n. 15 (3d Cir. 2016) (addressing standing and ripeness concomitantly, where "whether Plaintiffs have standing or their claims are ripe for adjudication both turn[ed] on whether the threat of future harm under the Statutes is sufficiently immediate to constitute a cognizable injury."); see also MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. , 549 U.S. 118, 128 n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007) (observing that "[t]he justiciability problem that arises, when the party seeking declaratory relief is himself preventing the complained-of injury from occurring, can be described in terms of standing ... or in terms of ripeness ....").
Article III of the United States Constitution confines the scope of federal judicial power to the adjudication of "cases" or "controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. This "bedrock requirement," Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982), protects the system of separation of powers and respect for the coequal branches by restricting the province of the judiciary to "decid[ing] on the rights of individuals." Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). Indeed, " '[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.' " Raines v. Byrd , 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997) (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org. , 426 U.S. 26, 37, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) ); see Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) ("In order to remain faithful to this tripartite structure, the power of the Federal Judiciary may not be permitted to intrude upon the powers given to the other branches.").
Courts have developed several justiciability doctrines to enforce the "case" or "controversy" requirement. See Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). "They include standing, ripeness, mootness, the political-question doctrine, and the prohibition on advisory opinions." Toll Bros. v. Twp. of Readington , 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir. 2009). Among those doctrines, the Article III doctrine "that requires a litigant to have 'standing' to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important ...." Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). The seminal standing question is "whether the plaintiff has 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf." Seldin , 422 U.S. at 498-99, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (quoting Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) ).
To satisfy the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of Article III standing, the plaintiff must establish three well-settled elements:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.
Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted); see Spokeo , 136 S.Ct. at 1547 ("The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.").
The standing inquiry in this case centers on the " '[f]irst and foremost' of standing's three elements," injury-in-fact. Spokeo , 136 S.Ct. at 1547 (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ). "The injury-in-fact requirement exists to assure that litigants have a 'personal stake' in the litigation." Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co. , 432 F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2005) ; see Cottrell v. Alcon Labs. , 874 F.3d 154, 162 (3d Cir. 2017) ("The purpose of the injury-in-fact requirement ... is 'to distinguish a person with a direct stake in the outcome of a litigation-even though small-from a person with a mere interest in the problem.' ") (quoting United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) , 412 U.S. 669, 689 n.14, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973) ). "Injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest." Danvers , 432 F.3d