Am. Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin

977 F.3d 1

The AMERICAN COUNCIL OF the BLIND and Patrick Sheehan, Appellants

Otis Stephens, Appellee

v.Steven T. MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury, Appellee

No. 19-5284

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued September 18, 2020

Decided October 9, 2020

Jeffrey A. Lovitky, Washington, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

Daniel Winik, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, Washington.

Before: Henderson and Walker, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge:

Under the terms of a 2008 injunction, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) must make the various Federal Reserve Notes distinguishable to the visually impaired no later than the next scheduled redesign of each denomination. These redesigns have been significantly delayed. In 2016, the American Council of the Blind (Council) moved to impose a firm deadline on the Secretary. The district court denied the motion, we vacated its order and on remand the district court denied a similar motion. The Council challenges this most recent denial on two grounds. First , it argues that the district court relied on Treasury's financial burden without obtaining "concrete estimates" of that burden, thereby violating our mandate in American Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin , 878 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ( ACB II ). Second , the Council contends that the district court abused its discretion because its decision lacked evidentiary support. We disagree on both points and affirm the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

Federal Reserve Notes—that is, U.S. paper currency—are identical in size and texture and nearly identical in color. These characteristics make using paper currency difficult for individuals who are blind or nearly blind. In 2002, the Council sued the Treasury Secretary, alleging that the design of U.S. paper currency violates the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by denying a reasonable accommodation to the visually impaired. So began a nearly two decades-long litigation odyssey.

In 2006, the Council won partial summary judgment, see Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson , 463 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2006), which we affirmed, see 525 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ( ACB I ). On remand, the district court disclaimed both the "expertise" and the "power" to "choose among the feasible alternatives, approve any specific design change, or otherwise to dictate to the Secretary of the Treasury how he can come into compliance with the law." 581 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Paulson , 463 F. Supp. 2d at 62 ). Thus, the district court's injunction—currently in force—required the Secretary to take:

such steps as may be required to provide meaningful access to United States currency for blind and other visually impaired persons, which steps shall be completed, in connection with each denomination of currency, not later than the date when a redesign of that denomination is next approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.

In response, Treasury developed a three-pronged plan for providing meaningful access to currency. See Meaningful Access to United States Currency for Blind and Visually Impaired Persons, 75 Fed. Reg. 28,331 (proposed May 20, 2010). First , the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Bureau) would produce new banknotes with a raised tactile feature (RTF). Second , the Bureau would continue its project, begun in 1997, of incorporating large, high-contrast numerals on new currency. Third , the Bureau would distribute handheld currency readers to the visually impaired.

Although the Bureau has made some progress on the second and third approaches, it has had little success developing an RTF. The Secretary set four goals for selecting an RTF: accuracy (the RTF must effectively allow the visually impaired to distinguish among denominations), manufacturability (it must be able to be produced in massive quantities), durability (it must not degrade prematurely) and processability (it must be capable of being processed by currency counting machines, vending machines, ATMs, etc.). The Bureau contends that balancing these factors is daunting; for example, larger, thicker RTFs may increase accuracy and durability while sacrificing manufacturability and processability.

In addition to the RTF's technical challenges, advances in counterfeiting have also pushed back the expected timeline for the accessibility redesign.¹ Under the 2008 injunction, the accessibility redesign is coupled with the security redesign. In 2012, the Bureau director attested that the expected accessibility timeline would not be met because of unexpected delays redesigning the $100 note to incorporate new anticounterfeiting technologies. Later, in a 2016 status report, Treasury said that it had "recently learned of significant developments in counterfeiting technology that bear upon the long-term effectiveness of the security features" it had planned on integrating into new notes. This setback necessitated the design and development of new security features.

The 2008 injunction was premised on the expectation that each denomination would be redesigned every seven to ten years. Treasury's most recent timeline contemplates that the required accessibility redesigns may not be completed until the 2030s—some three decades after the district court first found that Treasury was in violation of federal law. Understandably frustrated with the delays, the Council moved under Rule 60(b) to modify the injunction to a "deadline of December 31, 2020 by which date the Secretary must provide meaningful access to the $10 bill, which is the next bill scheduled to be redesigned." The Council further requested that the modified injunction require the Secretary "to make the remaining denominations of currency accessible to the blind and visually impaired not later than December 31, 2026." In sum, whereas the existing injunction couples the security and accessibility redesigns—relying on Treasury's emphasis on the former to also produce the latter—the Council's proposal decouples the redesigns and forces the accessibility redesign by a specific date.

The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, concluding that decoupling the redesigns "could create unnecessarily duplicative work and potentially increase costs for both the government and the private sector." Am. Council of the Blind v. Lew , No. 02-CV-00864, 2017 WL 6271264, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2017). In ACB II , we reversed. Because the district court relied on the financial burden imposed by the requested relief without obtaining a concrete estimate of that burden, we concluded that it had abused its discretion. See 878 F.3d at 371. Our holding was straightforward:

If the district court is to properly conclude that withholding meaningful access to paper currency from millions of visually impaired individuals for eight to twenty years longer than expected ... remains equitable because of the potential financial burden resulting from granting the plaintiffs’ modification, the district court needs more concrete estimates of the costs that matter.

Id .

On remand, the Council again moved to modify the injunction to require Treasury to provide meaningful access to the $10 note by the end of 2020 and to the other denominations by the end of 2026. Treasury opposed the motion. In addition, the Bureau expressed doubt about the efficacy of the three-pronged approach it had begun to develop in 2010. For example, a MITRE Corporation study showed significant percentages of experienced Braille readers were unable to correctly identify currency with an RTF. And because Braille readers were over-represented in the study compared to the overall population of visually impaired individuals, there was, in the Bureau's opinion, reason to believe that real-world results would be even worse. This was the factual background for the Bureau's December 2018 status report expressing "concerns regarding its ability to create a tactile feature for U.S. currency with an accuracy rate that will make it suitable for reliable use in commerce."

In any event, the district court again denied the Council's motion but for ostensibly different reasons from those we rejected in ACB II . See Am. Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin , 396 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.D.C. 2019). First , it found that decoupling the accessibility and security redesign "would divert Treasury resources and attention from pressing anti-counterfeiting measures." Id. at 189. Second , the court opined that the Council's proposed modification would require Treasury to begin immediately incorporating RTFs into U.S. currency, notwithstanding no suitable RTF is currently available. Id. at 193–97. The Council now appeals that decision.

II. ANALYSIS

We review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Pigford v. Johanns , 416 F.3d 12, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we reverse "if the district court applied the wrong legal standard or relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact." In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Actions , 327 F.3d 1207, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The district court also abuses its discretion if it violates the mandate of the court of appeals. See United States v. Kpodi , 888 F.3d 486, 491 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

In denying the Council's motion to modify the injunction, the district court was persuaded by two considerations: security and feasibility. Although those considerations can be indirectly affected by additional resources, they are distinguishable from the direct financial burden the district court considered in ACB II . The question, then, is whether they should be distinguished or whether our holding should be read more broadly. Both the language we used in ACB II and the purpose of the mandate rule counsel against concluding that the district...