(OK, literally just got off a plane so only now getting to read the decision in more detail) Court first addresses the question of standing, which is fairly clear cut: - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

dangaristo.bsky.social • 9 days ago

(OK, literally just got off a plane so only now getting to read the decision in more detail)

Court first addresses the question of standing, which is fairly clear cut:

Comments

dangaristo.bsky.social•9 days ago

Judge Talwani swats down the NSF's claim that the court lacks jurisdiction; she cites a case referring to this as "the sort of routine dispute that federal courts regularly review."

dangaristo.bsky.social•9 days ago

AAU & co. have four claims about the 15% rate:
1. it's contrary to NSF statutes
2. violates 2 C.F.R. § 200.414 (agency must accept negotiated rates
3. violates required cost recovery (actual costs)
4. arbitrary & capricious

dangaristo.bsky.social•9 days ago

Chevron is dead and Loper Bright is the law of the land. It's Judge Talwani's discretion, not the agency's, in ambiguous legal territory.

benecal.bsky.social•9 days ago

That’s delicious, in a schadenfreude way…

dangaristo.bsky.social•9 days ago

Here's how Judge Talwani concludes on count I (that the 15% rate is against NSF statutes). She rejects a flat 15% rate, but notes that does not preclude any across-the-board cap.

dangaristo.bsky.social•9 days ago

For count II (whether it violates 2 C.F.R. § 200.414), Talwani rejects this for reasons similar to DOE and NIH:

On using 15% for a 'class' of awards, she writes: "construing 'a group of federal awards' to IHEs to encompass all awards to all IHEs would allow the exception to swallow the whole."

dangaristo.bsky.social•9 days ago

Neither is the 15% rate really a deviation because it sets a new norm.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply