Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

American Council of Blind v. Mnuchin

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 22, 2019

STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant.



         The plaintiffs have, for the third time, moved to modify the injunction originally entered in this case in 2008, as relief for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by the defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury (“Treasury”). See Pls.' Renewed Mot. & Mem. to Modify Injunction (“Pls.' Third Mot.”), ECF No. 160. The original injunction ordered Treasury 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.” Injunction Order, October 3, 2008 (“Injunction Order”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 96. In 2016, citing Treasury's delays in redesigning currency in order to accommodate “significant developments in counterfeiting technology, ” see Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (Feb. 22, 2016) ¶ 5, ECF No. 139; Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (May 12, 2016) ¶ 1, ECF No. 141, the plaintiffs moved to modify the injunction to require Treasury to provide meaningful access to the $10 bill by December 31, 2020, and to other denominations that can be legally redesigned by December 31, 2026. See Pls.' Second Mot. & Mem. to Modify Injunction (“Pls.' Second Mot.”) at 4-5 & n.1, ECF No. 142.[1] This Court denied that motion, Am. Council of the Blind v. Lew, No. 02-CV-00864 (BAH), 2017 WL 6271264, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2017), but the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, Am. Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin, 878 F.3d 360, 371 (D.C. Cir. 2017).[2] In lieu of pursuing their second motion to modify the injunction on the limited issue requiring inquiry on remand, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to modify the injunction, mooting their second motion. See Jt. Status Rpt. & Stipulation dated Mar. 7, 2018 (“Mar. 2018 JSR”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 158 (“Upon the filing of plaintiffs' renewed motion to modify, plaintiffs' motion of June 6, 2016 [Pls.' Second Mot.] shall be deemed denied as moot.”).[3] The plaintiffs' third motion seeks identical relief to their second motion: an order requiring meaningful access by the visually impaired to the $10 bill by December 31, 2020 and to other denominations that can be legally redesigned by December 31, 2026. Pls.' Third Mot. at 4 & n.1.[4] For the reasons explained below, that motion is denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2002, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming that Treasury was violating the Rehabilitation Act because U.S. currency was not meaningfully accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. See Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. This Court agreed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed. See Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 463 F.Supp.2d 51, 62 (D.D.C. 2006), aff'd, 525 F.3d 1256');">525 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As noted, the 2008 Injunction Order required Treasury to “provide meaningful access to United States currency for blind and other visually impaired persons” within a time frame of “not later than the date when a redesign of that denomination is next approved by the Secretary of the Treasury after the entry of this order and judgment.” Injunction Order ¶ 2. At the time the Injunction Order was entered, the parties anticipated that the next redesign would occur between 2013 and 2018. Treasury now anticipates that a new $10 bill will not begin circulating until 2026, with subsequent denominations following at intervals of eighteen months to two years. Def.'s Answers to Court's Questions of Jan. 9, 2019 (“Def.'s Answers”) (Question 13(a)), ECF No. 179.[5] This delay, which was necessitated by “significant developments in counterfeiting technology, ” Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (Feb. 22, 2016) ¶ 5, also reflects the complexity of designing currency with a tactile or other feature that is distinct to each denomination, durable, and accurately distinguishable over time by persons with visual impairments. The following sections detail the history of this case, including the negotiations leading to the original Injunction Order, status reports memorializing Treasury's progress in complying with the Injunction Order, the arguments associated with and outcomes of the plaintiffs' two prior motions to modify the Injunction Order, and the manner in which the record related to the plaintiffs' third motion to modify the Injunction Order has developed.

         A. Claims Resulting in Declaratory Judgment that Treasury is Violating the Rehabilitation Act

         In 2002, the American Council of the Blind and two individual plaintiffs sued Treasury, alleging that the design of United States paper currency violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. See Compl. ¶ 1. The plaintiffs alleged that individuals with visual impairments lacked meaningful access to currency because “U.S. banknotes are all identical in size and color, and virtually identical in design, ” id. at 1, and that, “[a]s a result, individuals with visual disabilities suffer needless impediments in purchasing groceries, transportation, and a multitude of other goods and services, ” id. In 2006, the then-presiding Judge entered declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that Treasury violated Section 504 by “fail[ing] to design and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired individuals.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 463 F.Supp.2d at 62.[6]

         The Court paused, however, at fashioning the appropriate remedy. The plaintiffs sought three types of injunctive relief in their First Amended Complaint, which relief was discussed by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion, see id.: (1) “a permanent injunction prohibiting [Treasury] from continuing to manufacture banknotes in the present manner, the effect of which is to preclude millions of Americans from participating in the essential functions of everyday life;” (2) “a permanent injunction requiring that banknotes be designed to incorporate features which will make them accessible to people with blindness and other vision impairments; and in conjunction therewith order that [Treasury] provide for the approval of the Court a detailed corrective action plan as to the features which it will incorporate into the design of U.S. banknotes to accomplish such purpose, ” which corrective action plan must include a “schedule” for adding design features to assist individuals with visual disabilities other than total blindness, and “projected implementation dates, with appropriate milestones” for the incorporation of features designed to assist persons who are totally blind; and (3) “a permanent injunction mandating that [Treasury] diligently pursue the development of an inexpensive portable electronic device which is capable of both accurate and rapid denomination of banknotes.” First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) at 35-36, ECF No. 53. The Court declined to grant any of these requested forms of injunctive relief, stating that “[t]his Court has neither the expertise, nor, I believe, 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.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 463 F.Supp.2d at 62. Rather, the Court chose to “set a status conference for the purpose of discussing remedy, ” unless Treasury filed an interlocutory appeal. Id. To that end, the Court certified that its order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, ” such that “an immediate appeal . . . may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.” Id. at 62-63.

         B. D.C. Circuit Affirms that Treasury is Violating the Rehabilitation Act But Declines to Address Appropriate Remedy

         Accepting review of Treasury's interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed that the failure to design and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to the visually impaired violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act but remanded “for the district court to address the [plaintiffs'] request for injunctive relief.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 525 F.3d at 1259, 1265, 1274. Agreeing that Treasury “has discretion to choose from a range of accommodations” to provide meaningful access to paper currency, the Court also declined to direct the implementation of the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. Id. at 1271. Instead, the Court concluded that Treasury's “failure to demonstrate that all accommodations found by the district court to be facially reasonable would pose an undue burden presents no occasion for us to address any particular accommodation.” Id. The dissenting panel member opined that the interlocutory appeal was premature because a material fact remained disputed as to whether an “effective accommodation [existed that] the government could implement without imposing an ‘undue burden' on itself or the private sector.” Id. at 1275-76 (Randolph, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted) (observing that the majority does “not know what if anything should be implemented as an accommodation and neither does the American Council of the Blind, the Treasury, the district court, or the National Federation of the Blind (who supports Treasury)” (footnote omitted)).

         C. 2008 Injunction Order Couples Security Redesign and Meaningful Access Redesign Without Any Deadlines

         On remand to this Court, the parties turned their attention to remedies, and whether Treasury should be held to any particular timeline became a point of contention. On August 29, 2008, Treasury summarized its “process of determining how best to provide . . . meaningful access” and urged that “[i]t is in the interest of all concerned to permit . . . Treasury to gather the necessary data and complete its analysis to ensure that the method employed to provide . . . meaningful access is effective in achieving that objective without undermining the Secretary's critical efforts to prevent counterfeiting and to ensure that United States currency remains a reliable, durable, and usable medium of exchange for the public.” Def.'s Status Conference Stmt. ¶¶ 2, 9, ECF No. 80. Treasury suggested that its process would “allow the Court to have the benefit of the Secretary's factual investigation as well as the Department's experience and expertise in appropriately resolving the competing demands related to currency design.” Id. ¶ 9.

         The plaintiffs disagreed with Treasury's proposed process because Treasury “explicitly refused to provide Plaintiffs with any estimated time frames for completion of” its process and “therefore . . . the issue of time frames is [now] appropriate for discussion.” Pls.' Status Conference Stmt. ¶ 1, ECF No. 81. The plaintiffs, alternatively, proposed that the Court and the plaintiffs be deeply engaged in any process undertaken by Treasury in redesigning U.S. currency. Specifically, the plaintiffs requested that the Court “convene a status conference to discuss the timeframes for completion of [the process], ” with Treasury “provid[ing] estimated timeframes so as to permit monitoring by the Court, ” with such monitoring to include ongoing status reports if Treasury anticipated missing any deadline. See Pls.' Proposed Remedial Order ¶¶ 3, 5, 9, ECF No. 81-1. The plaintiffs also sought quarterly progress reports, with the Court required to “accept and consider comments from Plaintiffs” following each report, as well as quarterly meetings between the plaintiffs and Treasury to discuss progress and give the plaintiffs further opportunity to share comments. Id. ¶¶ 10-12.

         At a status conference convened on September 4, 2008, Min. Entry (Sept. 4, 2008), the plaintiffs' request for close judicial monitoring of Treasury was rejected, with the Court explaining it “will not, cannot, [and does not] want to micromanage this process; nor do I think, with all deference to the [plaintiffs], that [they] ha[ve] won a seat at the Treasury table that designs the bills.” Transcript of Hearing (Sept. 4, 2008) (“Sept. 2008 H'rg Tr.”) at 13:4-7, ECF No. 113-2. At the same time, the Court expressed concern that Treasury's preferred proposal appeared “open-ended as to time.” Id. at 3:11-12. Treasury responded that in order to comply with its “statutory mandate . . . to produce currency in the best manner to guard against counterfeiting, ” and “because . . . counterfeiters are progressing so quickly in their technology, ” “the standard” is to produce new currency designs every seven to ten years, id. at 10:5-12, and that Treasury planned to “fold some anti-counterfeiting changes into . . . changes made in relation to . . . this case, ” id. at 10:15-17. This plan prompted the Court to observe that “a reasonable provision of an order going forward that is not a micromanagement order” would be to couple any ongoing security redesign with an accessibility redesign. Id. at 13:15-22. But see Id. at 13:15-17 (Court stating that Treasury “requires new currency to be issued every seven to 10 years, ” when the statute contains no hard deadlines).[7] Based on this understanding-with an added caution from Treasury that the agency “has to have the ability to respond to changes, to developments and technology on the side of the counterfeiters, ” id. at 20:11-13-the parties were directed to provide status reports every 180 days and to submit a new proposed order “incorporating what [the Court hopes] can be understood from the conversation [at the Status Conference].” See Id. at 16:23-17:2, 22:10-15; Min. Entry (Sept. 4, 2008).

         Accordingly, Treasury submitted two versions of a proposed order. See Def.'s Mem. Regarding Final Order & Judgment (“Def.'s Mem. on Final Order”) at 2-3, ECF No. 88. In Treasury's preferred version, the agency proposed that “injunctive relief is neither necessary nor appropriate, ” and suggested that only a “report on progress in providing meaningful access to [] currency” should be required. Id. at 2. In the alternative version, Treasury proposed that a meaningful access redesign be required in connection with the next redesign of each denomination of currency. Id. at 7-8. Treasury cautioned that “[t]his does not mean, however, that redesigning the currency will necessarily be chosen as the means to comply with the Court's declaratory judgment. . . . [because Treasury is] considering all potential methods of providing meaningful access to [] currency.” Id. at 8. Indeed, the plaintiffs' original injunctive relief request sought, inter alia, development and deployment by Treasury “of an inexpensive portable electronic device which is capable of both accurate and rapid denomination of banknotes.” FAC at 36.

         The Injunction Order adopted by the Court largely mirrored Treasury's less preferred, alternative proposal, with only slight revisions. See Injunction Order ¶ 2. Treasury's proposed language exempting the $1 bill and the upcoming version of the $100 bill from the accessibility redesign requirement, see Id. ¶ 3, as well as language requiring Treasury to provide status reports every six months, id. ¶ 4, were also adopted.[8] Significantly, no specific deadlines for any redesign were included. Indeed, while the plaintiffs unsuccessfully urged that reference to “scheduled” redesigns, based on Treasury's history of redesigning currency every seven to ten years, be expressly included in the Injunction Order, see Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Mem. on Final Order at 7 n.3, ECF No. 89, they acknowledged the risk that if deadlines were incorporated as they initially requested, Treasury “will use court mandated time frames as a justification for a remedy which is based on external note tellers, ” whereas “[r]edesigning the currency may require more time than would the furnishing of external note tellers, ” id. at 6. See also Am. Council of the Blind v. Lew, 2017 WL 6271264, at *1 (noting that the language coupling the two redesigns was “based on a draft of a remedial order proposed by [Treasury], but the plaintiffs raised no objection to this particular provision, nor did they suggest a specific timeframe be designated”).

         The Memorandum Opinion accompanying the order did “not question the Treasury Department's commitment to achieving compliance, ” and also commonsensically noted that “the best-laid plans can be derailed by shifting priorities, limited resources, and the other vagaries of bureaucratic action.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 581 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2008). Acknowledging that the Court “has neither the expertise, nor . . . the power[] to choose among the feasible alternatives, approve any specific design change, or otherwise . . . dictate to the Secretary of the Treasury how he can come into compliance with the law, ” the Court maintained “the expertise and the authority to create goals and to hold the government to those goals.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While Treasury had requested the right to delay the issuance of accessible currency if a redesign was “urgently needed to counter a threat or threats of counterfeiting, ” Def.'s Mem. on Final Order at 9, this “carte blanche to delay the issuance of accessible currency” was denied in light of the agency's ability to “file a specific request, properly supported” if Treasury “needs relief from the injunction for that reason (or any reason).” Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 581 F.Supp.2d at 2.

         This background to the original Injunction Order illustrates that the plaintiffs were aware at the time of adoption that any redesign of currency was not on any precise schedule. See Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Mem. on Final Order at 7 n.3 (“Defendant is correct in stating that major redesigns are not on any ‘precise schedule.'” (emphasis in original)). The plaintiffs intermittently requested that Treasury be held to more specific deadlines, but also recognized both the difficulty and drawbacks of attempting to set a deadline for the complicated goal of achieving meaningful access to currency. Id. at 6. Their request for more specific timeframes was, accordingly, considered but overruled. At its core, the 2008 Injunction Order acknowledged that Treasury was subject to two legal requirements: an obligation to ensure that U.S. currency is meaningfully accessible to the visually impaired, and an over-arching obligation to ensure that U.S. currency is secure. The 2008 Injunction Order instructed Treasury to accomplish both redesigns simultaneously, but recognized that the means of complying with both legal obligations were subject to some degree of uncertainty. This order has remained in place, without modification, for more than a decade-a period marked by constructive attention to the accessibility issue by Treasury as well as adoption of a number of steps to make U.S. currency more accessible to the visually impaired. See Am. Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin, 878 F.3d at 364-65 (recognizing that “[s]ince 2011, the Bureau [of Engraving and Printing] has produced tangible results” and noting “all denominations include large numerals and some denominations . . . include high-contrast numerals. . . . [the Bureau] created and produced free currency readers. . . . [and] also developed free currency-reading applications for mobile phones”).

         D. Treasury Adopts a Three-Pronged Approach to Providing Meaningful Access to Currency and Submits Regular Status Reports

         Over the next three and a half years, between October 3, 2008 and June 4, 2012, Treasury submitted eight status reports. Each report detailed the steps Treasury took to gather data about the demographics of visually impaired persons, conduct focus groups, and perform “usability studies” in which “blind and other visually impaired individuals in all age categories . . . used various technologies, including foreign currency with tactile features, currency with large print numerals, different-sized currency, currency with varying color and contrast features, currency readers, and cell phone technology.” See Def.'s First Status Rpt. (Feb. 27, 2009) ¶ 2, ECF No. 102.

         Following this course of study, Treasury published, in the Federal Register, a three-pronged approach proposed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“BEP”) to provide meaningful access to currency by: (1) adding a raised tactile feature (“RTF”) to bills so that visually impaired individuals could differentiate denominations by touch; (2) continuing to add colors and large, high-contrast numerals to bills; and (3) implementing a supplemental currency-reader distribution program. See Meaningful Access to United States Currency for Blind and Visually Impaired Persons, 75 Fed. Reg. 28331-02 (proposed May 20, 2010); see also Def.'s Fourth Status Rpt. ¶ 1 (Sept. 16, 2010), ECF No. 106.[9] On May 31, 2011, following public comment, the Secretary of the Treasury approved this three-pronged approach. See Def.'s Sixth Status Rpt. (Sept. 16, 2011) ¶ 2, ECF No. 108. Treasury noted that “[d]evelopment of the most appropriate tactile feature is expected to require a significant amount of time, ” and it “has not yet established a timetable for the next currency redesign.” Id. ¶ 3. Regardless, Treasury indicated that “[d]evelopment of an appropriate tactile feature is a priority project at the BEP, which is currently conducting a number of feasibility studies on multiple technologies.” Def.'s Seventh Status Rpt. (Mar. 16, 2012) ¶ 2, ECF No. 109.

         On May 21, 2012, Treasury was “directed to file an additional status report, by June 4, 2012, explaining . . . when [it] anticipates that it will be in full compliance with the terms of the [Injunction Order], and whether the obligation to file status reports every six months should be modified in any way.” Min. Order (May 21, 2012).[10] Treasury reiterated that its “goal is to redesign each denomination of currency every seven to ten years, primarily in furtherance of the statutory mandate to produce currency ‘in the best manner to guard against counterfeits and fraudulent alterations.'” Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (June 4, 2012) ¶ 2, ECF No. 111 (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 418). Noting that, as of 2012, Treasury had “not yet established a timetable for the next currency redesign, ” id. ¶ 4, the agency further observed that as it “continues to develop the tactile feature to be used, [Treasury] is unlikely to have much information to report toward that end until development of the specific feature is completed, ” id. ¶ 7. Consequently, Treasury recommended that its reporting obligations be reduced to once every twelve months, id. ¶ 9, which recommendation was opposed by plaintiffs, see Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (June 2012) at 11-12, ECF No. 112, and not adopted by the Court.

         E. Plaintiffs' First Motion to Modify the Injunction is Denied

         Shortly thereafter, on June 14, 2012, in a motion that was identical to, and filed on the same day as, their response to Treasury's supplemental status report, the plaintiffs filed their first motion to modify the Injunction Order. See Pls.' First Motion to Modify the Injunction Order (“Pls.' First Mot.”), ECF No. 113.[11] The plaintiffs contended that Treasury's “failure to advise this court of even an anticipated date by which [it] will come into compliance with the law clearly demonstrates the need for more intrusive judicial supervision, ” id. at 6, and that “it is now clear that the assumed contingency [of a seven- to ten-year period for redesigning currency] will not materialize, id. at 8. See also Pls.' Reply in Supp. of First Mot. at 7, ECF No. 120 (“The intended result of [the Injunction Order] has been thwarted because the expectation of issuing redesigned currency every [seven to ten] years has not materialized. These changed circumstances warrant modification of the decree.”).

         As relief, the plaintiffs “request[ed] that this Court mandate that the Secretary, within the next 60 days, furnish a detailed implementation plan setting forth the specific steps which will be required to come into compliance with the law, and the anticipated dates by which each of those steps will be completed” and that Treasury be ordered to “come into compliance with Section 504 by the earlier of the (a) dates set forth in [that] detailed implementation schedule . . . or (b) the date when a redesign of that denomination is next approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.” Pls.' First Mot. at 11-12 (emphasis in original). In particular, the plaintiffs wanted the 2008 Injunction Order modified to incorporate the three-pronged strategy Treasury adopted in 2011, which specified that Treasury would add an RTF and high-contrast numerals to bills and would distribute currency readers, id. at 12-14; see supra Section I.D, and a further modification requiring “either the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the BEP, or one of their principal deputies, on a non-delegable basis, ” to report quarterly on the agency's progress, Pls.' First Mot. at 15-16.

         Treasury opposed the plaintiffs' proposed modifications because the plaintiffs had failed to show that “extraordinary circumstances” justified modifying the injunction, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' First Mot. at 6, ECF No. 115.[12] First, Treasury noted that “plaintiffs' motion seeks to relitigate proposed provisions that this Court rejected in entering its [Injunction Order], ” id. at 7, including by resubmitting evidence concerning Canadian currency that the “Court was fully aware of . . . before entering the current judgment, ” id. at 8. Second, Treasury argued that the “plaintiffs have presented no valid reason to alter the Court's judgment by disconnecting assistance for the blind and visually impaired from the timing of the next redesign for purposes of counterfeit deterrence.” Id. at 9. Additionally, Treasury posited that “‘a detailed implementation plan with anticipated dates' would be unworkable and would unduly intrude into the Secretary's discretion in designing the currency.” Id. at 9-10. Further, Treasury had “encountered significant challenges with the $100 bill. . . . [because] [s]everal new anti-counterfeiting features and other advanced features in the redesigned $100 note subsequently caused significant manufacturing issues that the BEP did not foresee.” Id. at 10-11 (citation omitted). In light of these changes, Treasury argued that “the lapse of the [seven- to ten-] year period since the last redesign does not affect the validity of the [Injunction Order].” Id. at 11 (footnote omitted).

         In rebutting the plaintiffs' call for a detailed implementation plan, Treasury highlighted the fact that

redesigning the currency, especially to include a tactile feature, is a complex, multi-step process involving many different entities, including the BEP and the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Currency Technology Office of the Federal Reserve System, and the U.S. Secret Service []. Completing this process successfully also requires balancing many considerations, including the needs of blind and other visually impaired persons; the efficiency and economy of the manufacturing process; the needs of the Federal Reserve System as to durability, usability, and consistency; the needs of currency users and the banknote processing community; and the statutory mandate to produce currency in the best manner to guard against counterfeiting [].

Id. at 12-13 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, Treasury posited that “[i]ncorporating a ‘detailed . . . plan with anticipated dates' would inevitably lead to judicial micromanagement involving such mundane matters as why a given meeting among the various entities had to be rescheduled.” Id. at 13 (alterations in original).

         Treasury also vigorously opposed the plaintiffs' request to incorporate the agency's 2010 three-pronged plan for coming into compliance with Section 504 into the Injunction Order. Treasury argued that the existence of tactile features on other currencies had been studied but “does not mean that a satisfactory tactile feature can easily be included on U.S. currency, ” id. at 12 (emphasis in original), and, further, that “incorporating [the Secretary's] decision [to adopt the three-pronged plan] into a judgment of this Court would necessarily convert it into the Court's decision. . . . [so] [t]he Secretary would no longer have discretion regarding the design of currency, ” id. at 15 (emphasis in original). Moreover, no Court had ever held “that the Rehabilitation Act requires the Secretary to undertake all three of the methods he has chosen to assist the blind and visually impaired, ” yet incorporating the three-pronged approach “would inaccurately connote that all three of the[] [prongs] are required by the Rehabilitation Act.” Id. Finally, Treasury urged rejection of plaintiffs' “overreaching demand for the Secretary of the Treasury or other high official to sign a report every three months, ” particularly since the agency is “proceeding apace to comply with this Court's judgment.” Id. at 16.

         The plaintiffs' first motion to modify the Injunction Order was denied without prejudice on the grounds that “the plaintiffs have not shown any extraordinary circumstances justifying a change in the existing semi-annual report obligation, or any other amendment of Judge Robertson's [Injunction Order].” Order dated Aug. 15, 2012 at 1, ECF No. 121 (internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted). Treasury was ordered to “continue to file semi-annual reports, ” “work diligently and expeditiously to fulfill its obligations under the [Injunction Order], ” and “promptly inform the Court of any additional major delays in implementing the next major currency redesign-in supplementary updates to the semi-annual reports if necessary-and be as precise as possible in its semi-annual reports about the timeline for fulfilling its obligations under the [Injunction Order].” Id. at 1-2.

         F. Treasury Anticipates that RTF Bills will Begin Circulating in 2020, Although RTF Testing is Slightly Delayed

         Following the denial of the plaintiffs' first motion to modify the Injunction Order, Treasury continued its efforts to test RTF and to promote currency readers. Over the next three years, between August 15, 2012 and September 16, 2015, Treasury submitted nine status reports and one White Paper and began projecting that RTF bills would begin circulating in 2020. In its ninth status report, Treasury indicated that three different RTF application methods had been tested and one eliminated, Def.'s Ninth Status Rpt. (Mar. 18, 2013) ¶ 2, ECF No. 123, and that the agency continued to make progress in implementing its currency reader program and developing mobile applications for scanning currency, id. ¶¶ 7, 8. Treasury also, in 2013, provided a “White Paper Regarding Meaningful Access to U.S. Currency for Blind and Visually Impaired Individuals” which BEP submitted to the Senate Committee on Appropriations on June 27, 2013. See Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (July 3, 2013), ECF No. 124; id., Att. 1, White Paper Regarding Meaningful Access (“2013 White Paper), ECF No. 124-1. This White Paper was the first time Treasury projected that “the first redesigned denomination containing a tactile feature, an improved large, high-contrast numeral, and new security features” would be released for circulation in 2020, with the $10 bill predicted to be the first new note circulated based on a security analysis and specific attributes of that bill. 2013 White Paper at 3-4 (“The $10 note was . . . selected because it is a transactional note used frequently in commerce and it has a low production volume, which will allow for the smoothest transition of a new complex design to manufacturing.”). Treasury cautioned, however, that this projection “depends on much more than just the successful design and integration of a tactile feature. The release date is also dependent on technology/security feature development, production issues, and other unanticipated developments.” Id. at 3.

         With regards to the RTF method, Treasury discussed efforts to test “for durability and producibility, features using special inks and other materials applied to the surface of the substrate, features embedded into the substrate, features that involve alterations to the substrate, and features using intaglio print techniques, ” id. at 6 (footnote omitted), with intaglio defined as “a printing technique in which an image is incised into a surface and the incised lines hold the ink for transfer to the substrate under pressure, ” id. at 6 n.4. “BEP chose not to directly adopt tactile features used by other countries given the higher durability requirements for the worldwide circulation of Federal Reserve notes and the extended life of those notes in circulation.” Id. at 6. To assess the needs of visually impaired individuals, Treasury engaged in a number of community outreach and research efforts, including usability and acuity studies, which “involve asking users (blind and other visually impaired persons) to interact with various potential tactile features, ” Def.'s Tenth Status Rpt. (Sept. 16, 2013) ¶ 2, ECF No. 125, hosting a forum on incorporation of an RTF, id. ¶ 3, and meeting with “representatives of eighteen domestic and international cash handling equipment manufacturers, ” id. ¶ 4.

         In September 2014, Treasury indicated that “[r]ecent events have affected some of the interim benchmark dates in the development of a tactile feature, ” because a subcommittee “declined to approve narrowing the field [of RTF technologies] to the single recommended technology.” Def.'s Twelfth Status Rpt. (Sept. 16, 2014) ¶ 3, ECF No. 127. Shortly after this report, Treasury submitted a copy of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's report to Congressional Committees on the U.S currency reader program. Def.'s Notice of Filing, Att. 1, 2014 GAO Rpt., ECF No. 129-1. This report found that “BEP's plans to evaluate the effectiveness of [its] new [currency reader] program are incomplete, and without a complete evaluation, BEP cannot determine the program's effectiveness.” 2014 GAO Rpt. at “GAO Highlights”. Acknowledging that BEP has “[m]ade limited progress in developing a raised tactile feature, ” the GAO report noted that development of an RTF was “over a year behind schedule, ” id., “the Federal Reserve has raised concerns about” “the potential cost impact of a tactile feature and whether the extent of technological changes since the [Injunction Order] could provide alternative options to [the three-pronged approach].” Id. at 23. Thus, “there was a discussion of the option to provide access to currency without adding a tactile feature, [although] no decision has been made.” Id. at 23-24. The GAO noted the importance of the currency reader program in serving as “an effective interim step to provide access to currency for visually impaired persons” as “[e]ven when a tactile feature is introduced, notes with a tactile feature will co-circulate with notes that do not have a tactile feature.” Id. at 24.

         In response to Treasury's September 2014 Status Report, the plaintiffs requested that additional information be ordered produced by Treasury since the Secretary's September 2014 Status Report “fail[ed] to adequately explain the impact of the . . . delay in approving the application method to be used in the manufacture of a tactile feature, ” and raised concern that Treasury's “representation . . . that the BEP remains on target for circulating accessible currency by 2020 appears to be both inaccurate and misleading.” Pls.' Mot. for Order & Mem. in Supp. at 3, ECF No. 128.[13] “Indeed, based upon the prior testimony of BEP's officials, the reengineering process which will be required to provide the Secretary with the capability to manufacture a tactile feature will likely take at least five years from the date of final approval of the application materials and methods to be used.” Id. at 7-8 (citing declarations to this effect). The plaintiffs pointed to the 2013 White Paper, which specified “nine interim steps, with anticipated dates of completion for each step, ” and argued that the agency's incorporation of this White Paper into its July 2013 Status report “necessarily imposes upon the Secretary a concomitant obligation to keep that schedule up to date.” Pls.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Order at 2, ECF No. 131. The plaintiffs also called attention to Treasury's failure to mention “the highly significant fact that the Federal Reserve has expressed significant reservations pertaining to the inclusion of a tactile feature, or that discussions are ongoing between the Federal Reserve and the BEP which may result in the elimination of that feature.” Id. at 6.

         Treasury, however, reiterated that “[d]espite the concerns expressed by the Federal Reserve, [Treasury] remains committed to the existing three-pronged plan for complying with [the Injunction Order]. Def.'s Surreply in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Order at 1, ECF No. 133. The plaintiffs' motion for an order was denied because “although recent events have affected some of the interim benchmark dates in the development of a tactile feature, [Treasury] does not believe that those events will impact the target date for the ultimate production of redesigned currency with a tactile feature” and although the plaintiffs' “motion requested additional information regarding the reliability of this statement in light of the recent events, . . . [Treasury] provided such information in the [2014] GAO Report.” Min. Order (Nov. 3, 2014) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). “Nevertheless, the Court remind[ed] [Treasury] of its obligations to ‘be as precise as possible in its semi-annual reports about the timeline for fulfilling its obligations'” including by reporting major delays. Id. (quoting Order dated Aug. 15, 2012).

         Treasury continued to test various RTF application methods, including by submitting three versions to “high-speed cash machine testing.” Def.'s Fourteenth Status Rpt. (Sept. 16, 2015) ¶ 2, ECF No. 138. As a result of this testing, Treasury eliminated one RTF application method, and began to focus on the two remaining ones: intaglio, which uses engraved plates and a high-pressure printing press to force paper into an engraved plate and create an RTF, and coated-embossed, a process in which a coating is applied to the location of the RTF, then matching dies are pressed together on either side of the note to create the feature. See id.; Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (Dec. 20, 2018) ¶ 6, ECF No. 169 (explaining these two processes more fully). Treasury planned to print six samples incorporating each of the two RTF application methods for testing in November 2015, including testing by Banknote Equipment Manufacturers, a group that “produce[s] a variety of devices that process U.S. currency.” Def.'s Fourteenth Status Rpt. (Sept. 16, 2015) ¶ 3. Further large-group acuity testing was scheduled for April 2016, after which point Treasury anticipated that the final RTF application method would be selected. Id. ¶ 4. Based on this schedule, Treasury's “target date for producing currency with a tactile feature remain[ed] the year 2020.” Id.

         G. New Counterfeiting Technology Delays Security Redesign As Well As Meaningful Access Redesign

         Five months later, however, in February 2016, Treasury submitted notice “of developments that have recently occurred in the timing of the next redesign of U.S. currency” and “will necessarily affect when BEP begins producing currency with a tactile feature, for reasons unrelated to the development of such feature.” Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (Feb. 22, 2016) ¶ 2. In particular, Treasury had “recently learned of significant developments in counterfeiting technology that bear upon the long-term effectiveness of the security features which were anticipated for the new $10 note.” Id. ¶ 5. Thus, “new, additional security features must be created for the next redesign of the currency.” Id. “The research and development necessary to create these new features will require a significant amount of time, thus delaying the development and production of the next redesign beyond the year 2020.” Id. (emphasis added). Although Treasury predicted that it could provide a new target date “within the next couple of months, ” it cautioned that “because this [redesign] effort will require innovation and invention, the target date will reflect significant assumptions.” Id. ¶ 6. At the same time, Treasury “continues to expect that [RTF] will be ready for incorporation into the next redesign.” Id. ¶ 7. Further, currency reader programs and mobile applications “will continue to be offered as the BEP develops the new anti-counterfeiting features that have become necessary to keep the nation's currency secure.” Id. ¶ 8.

         In May 2016, Treasury explained that, in light of the redesign delay necessitated by “significant developments in counterfeiting technology, ” Def.'s Supp. Status Rpt. (May 12, 2016) ¶ 1, BEP was working closely with the Federal Reserve “to accelerate work on the next family of notes with the aim that they circulate as quickly as possible, consistent with security requirements, ” id. ¶ 2. Treasury further advised that BEP “anticipates that the first notes incorporating the new security features will be ready for production no later than 2026, ” id., although “[t]his timeline is subject to revision based on a variety of factors, most notably security concerns and the pace of technological advancements, ” id.

         H. Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Modify the Injunction is Denied

         Treasury's announcement that the security and meaningful access redesigns would be delayed prompted the plaintiffs to file their second motion to modify the injunction. As the plaintiffs noted, had the seven- to ten-year “goal” of security redesigns been met, “the $20 note would have been redesigned between 2010-2013, the $50 note between 2011-2014, the $10 note between 2013-2016, and the $5 note between 2015-2018. The Secretary has now furnished a new estimated date of 2026 to redesign the $10 note, and has not provided any estimated dates for redesign of the remaining denominations.” Pls.' Second Mot. at 3. “The magnitude of the delays in this case, ” according to the plaintiffs, “clearly constitutes a changed circumstance warranting modification of the [Injunction Order]” because its “intended result . . . has been thwarted.” Id. at 14. Specifically, the plaintiffs now sought to “set a deadline of December 31, 2020” to provide meaningful access to the $10 bill, and to order Treasury “to make the remaining denominations [not including the $1 bill] of currency accessible to the blind and visually impaired not later than December 31, 2026.” See Id. at 4-5 & n.1. The 2020 deadline for meaningful access to the $10 bill urged by the plaintiffs corresponded to the target date Treasury set in its 2013 White Paper. See Id. at 7.

         As support for modifying the 2008 Injunction Order by altering its core principle of improving access in tandem with redesigns to combat counterfeiting, the plaintiffs highlighted that the redesign date “was postponed until 2026 for reasons that are unrelated to the production of [RTF]” and that Treasury “has not indicated any impediments to adding a tactile feature by 2020.” Id. at 16-17. Although acknowledging that the BEP Director had stated, in a July 17, 2012 declaration, that “disconnecting the timing of the counterfeiting and accessibility redesigns would add considerable complexity and additional expense, ” the plaintiffs discounted this concern as “mooted” because “[a]n accessibility redesign in 2020 would be six years apart from a security redesign in 2026.” Id. at 20-21 (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted) (quoting Second Supp. Decl. of Larry R. Felix, Director of BEP ¶ 3, ECF No. 119-1). Moreover, the plaintiffs discounted Treasury's “argument pertaining to the additional cost and complexity of conducting two separate redesigns [as] undocumented, ” id. at 21, and emphasized that, in their view, “[a]n external device cannot serve as a substitute for a system through which a visually impaired person can independently denominate banknotes using his or her own senses, ” id. at 23. Although “[t]he intent underlying th[e] [Injunction Order] was to prod the Secretary into making [U.S.] currency accessible to the blind and visually impaired, ” id. at 37, the plaintiffs expressed concern that Treasury “is now using the [Injunction Order] as a justification for delaying a meaningful access redesign, ” id. Speculating that Treasury might seek “permission to conduct an urgent counterfeiting redesign even in the absence of an accessibility redesign, ” id., the plaintiffs posited that “if this Court would amend the order to allow the government to undertake an urgent counterfeiting redesign, it should be no less willing to amend the order to mandate meaningful access by a specific deadline, ” id. at 38.

         In opposing the plaintiffs' motion, Treasury argued that “[i]n entering its [Injunction Order], the Court recognized the efficiency of allowing BEP to incorporate any changes to the currency and next round of security features into one redesign. Plaintiffs' modification would eliminate that efficiency.” Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Second Mot. at 17, ECF No. 148; id. at 21 (same). Modification was unnecessary, Treasury reasoned, because the agency “has every incentive to produce a redesign as quickly as possible, because of the ever-growing threat of counterfeiting.” Id. at 1; see also Id. at 15 (“This Court chose to link providing meaningful access with changing the currency to guard against counterfeiting not simply as a matter of convenience, but in recognition of the many factors the Secretary must consider in designing currency, including the statutory command to guard against counterfeiting.”). As the “Court and the parties understood, at the time of the [Injunction Order], ” id., the “timing of . . . redesigns and the intervals between them depend, in large measure, on changes in counterfeiting technology and emerging counterfeiting threats. . . . [which] require BEP to work carefully but quickly in producing redesigns, so that . . . currency is not left vulnerable to counterfeiting, ” id. at 2.

         As for RTF methods, Treasury highlighted that “the development of an appropriate tactile feature was always expected to require a significant amount of time, ” especially where raised features used by other countries “either are too low to be usable even when new, or wear down so much in circulation as to become unusable fairly quickly.” Id. at 6-7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Considering Treasury's “strong and ongoing commitment to adding a[n] [RTF] to the nation's currency, ” “none of the considerations that supported linking the completion of that effort to the redesign of each denomination ha[s] changed.” Id. at 12.[14]

         In arguing that decoupling the two redesigns would not serve the public interest, Treasury explained that currency changes “impose significant costs on private businesses” and “[r]equiring the Secretary to redesign each denomination twice in the near future, . . . once to incorporate a tactile feature . . . and again to update the anti-counterfeiting features[, ] would both substantially increase private-sector costs and create a very real risk of confusion for businesses and the broader public.” Id. at 20. Successful completion of any redesign “process . . . requires balancing many considerations, including the needs of blind and other visually impaired persons; the efficiency and economy of the manufacturing process; the needs of the Federal Reserve System as to durability, usability, and consistency; the needs of currency users and the banknote processing community; and the statutory mandate to produce currency in the ‘best manner' to guard against counterfeiting.” Id. at 24. (citation omitted) (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 418).

         The plaintiffs' motion was denied.[15] This Court noted that the original Injunction Order “did not set a specific deadline for compliance with Section 504, ” but instead “paired the development of features to improve meaningful access to currency with the ongoing, and statutorily required, redesigns of currency to combat counterfeiting.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Lew, 2017 WL 6271264, at *2. Despite the delays in implementing “some features that will improve access to currency, ” the Court declined to “upset the balance struck in the [Injunction Order].” Id. The delays neither rendered the Injunction Order “detrimental to the public interest” under Rule 60(b)(5) nor were they “‘extraordinary circumstances' that would justify a modification under the higher standard of Rule 60(b)(6).” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, since the 2008 Injunction Order “substantial progress has been made in improving access to currency for the blind and visually impaired, ” id., including progress in designing an RTF, in “adding large, high-contrast numerals and different colors to each denomination, ” id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and in implementing “a currency reader distribution program, ” id.; see also Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Second Mot. at 19 (“BEP has secured and analyzed a comprehensive contractor study; conducted numerous instances of feasibility testing, usability testing, acuity testing, and manufacturing trials; . . . helped prepare manufacturers of cash handling equipment for the incorporation of a tactile feature; and sought to address concerns expressed by other federal government stakeholders.”); id. at 6 (“BEP has been working diligently to implement these measures, including the development of a usable and durable tactile feature for the currency. Since 2008, BEP has added high-contrast numerals to the $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 notes, including different colors [added] to both the $5 and $100 notes. BEP will add colors to all future redesigns. BEP has also made free currency readers available to every individual who requests them. . . . [and] has monitored and deployed technologies that have emerged since the [Injunction Order].”); id. at 10 (discussing the full nationwide distribution of the “iBill, ” a free currency reader, and Treasury's efforts to publicize it).

         While “recogniz[ing] that this progress is not as significant as a released redesigned note, ” “decoupling improvements for the blind and visually impaired . . . from the continuing efforts by BEP to redesign currency to combat counterfeiting[] could create unnecessarily duplicative work and potentially increase costs for both the government and the private sector.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Lew, 2017 WL 6271264, at *2 (citing Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Second Mot., Att. 1, Decl. of Michael Wash (“2016 Wash Decl.”) ¶ 15, ECF No. 148-1 (explaining that redesigning “each denomination twice in the near future . . . once to incorporate [tactile features] and again to incorporate new visual designs and enhanced security features to continue to minimize counterfeiting-would both substantially increase private sector costs and create a very real risk of confusion for both businesses and the broader public”)). In other words, “plaintiffs' proposed modification might turn out to be more detrimental to the public interest than the current order in effect.” Id. (emphasis in original).

         I. D.C. Circuit Remands for “[B]etter [S]upport” of Court's “[F]indings [S]upporting [D]enial [O]f [M]odified [I]njunctive [R]elief”

         The plaintiffs appealed the denial of their second motion to modify the injunction. Analyzing the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded to obtain “[a] more concrete estimate of the financial burden of incorporating a raised tactile feature, ” which the Circuit described as “necessary, ” even though Treasury had told the Circuit “we don't know exactly what the costs are.” Am. Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin, 878 F.3d at 369 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Treasury Secretary's counsel at oral argument before D.C. Circuit, Transcript of Oral Argument, Am. Council of the Blind v. Mnuchin, D.C. Cir. No. 17-5013 (Oct. 19, 2017) at 20:55-21:05). The D.C. Circuit found that, in denying plaintiffs' proposed modification of “forcing an earlier redesign of currency separate from the planned anti-counterfeiting redesign, ” id. at 367, this Court “did not abuse its discretion by considering the costs to the government” or “private sector costs, ” id. at 367-68, and further that the “added financial burden of decoupling the timelines may very well render the Secretary's ongoing violation of the Rehabilitation Act-which the parties reasonably expected to be cured in one decade but under the Secretary's current timeline will stretch into a second decade, and most likely a third-equitable, ” id. at 368.

         Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit deemed “without adequate evidentiary support, ” “insufficient, ” “hardly precise, ” not “concrete, ” “unclear, ” and “guesstimates” projections that private sector costs to upgrade equipment could be $3 to $4 million, and that the “investment required to prepare” Treasury to produce banknotes with an RTF would be $5 million to $66 million and that “annual maintenance costs” would be up to $12 million, id. at 368-70. The Circuit opined that “the investment costs . . . specific to producing a raised tactile feature” will be “incurred whenever it is put to use without regard to coupling/decoupling, ” id. at 369, and “we do not have any data on the difference” to the private sector between two redesigns compared to a “single coupled change, ” id. at 370. The Circuit recognized that “decoupling the timelines and producing banknotes with a raised tactile feature sooner than 2026 (at the earliest) may lead to more annual maintenance costs and therefore more total costs, ” id. at 369, would require Treasury “to change printing plates twice rather than once if a raised tactile feature is introduced before the next planned currency redesign, ” id., which “may well be more inefficient, ” id., and that “[t]he costs of two redesigns will presumably [] be higher than the cost of one redesign, ” id. Yet, the Circuit sought more concrete evidence of this “difference in costs between the two timelines, ” id., stating that this “financial difference is crucial to weighing the equities of the plaintiffs' requested modification, ” id. At the same time as concluding “the district court needs more concrete estimates of the costs that matter, ” id. at 371, the Circuit was aware not only that Treasury was unable to provide such concrete costs since no RTF technology had been selected, id. at 365 n.6, 368-70, but also that “even banking industry representatives say that the industry cannot make reasonable estimates until the [BEP] announces the specific height and application method of the tactile feature, ” id. at 370 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

         On remand, the parties were directed to propose a schedule for further proceedings and to appear for a status conference on March 14, 2018. See Min. Order (Feb. 23, 2018). In response, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would file a renewed motion to modify, mooting their second motion, see Mar. 2018 JSR ¶ 1, and the plaintiffs indicated that they might seek discovery, id. ¶ 4, although no such discovery motion ever materialized. The parties disclaimed the necessity of any status conference, id. ¶ 6, and thus the scheduled status conference was cancelled, Min. Order (Mar. 7, 2018).

         During the pendency of the appeal to the D.C. Circuit, Treasury had continued testing on RTF technologies. Specifically, Treasury “recruit[ed] . . . approximately fifty-five focus group participants” for testing to “rectify the accuracy and durability concerns that have so far been associated with tactile features.” Def.'s Seventeenth Status Rpt. (Mar. 16, 2017) ¶ 2, ECF No. 155. This “testing showed significant variation in the accuracy rates among participants.” Def.'s Eighteenth Status Rpt. (Sept. 18, 2017) ¶ 3, ECF No. 156. Treasury subsequently provided notice that it had “settled on a four-position rectangle shape for the [RTF], . . . but ha[d] not yet chosen between the two remaining methods of application (Intaglio or Coated-embossed).” Def.'s Nineteenth Status Rpt. (Mar. 16, 2018) ¶ 2, ECF No. 159. To inform this RTF selection, Treasury anticipated holding durability testing on the different RTF methods from February to April 2018, focus groups in March and April 2018, bank equipment testing from March through May 2018, critical manufacturing testing from April through August 2018, and further large-scale testing with visually impaired individuals in July and August 2018. Id. ¶ 3. Treasury also planned to analyze how the RTF would interact with the rest of the note in 2019, enabling it to make a final decision as to which RTF application method to select by late 2019. Id. Finally, Treasury updated the sequence of redesigns “[b]ased on an assessment of . . . emerging counterfeiting threats, ” although the $10 note was still expected to be redesigned first, and to be “ready for production no later than 2026.” Id. ¶ 4.

         J. Plaintiffs File Third Motion to Modify the Injunction

         Two months after the mandate issued, the plaintiffs filed the pending motion to modify the injunction with the identical relief as their second motion. Once again, the plaintiffs request that Treasury be ordered to provide meaningful access to the $10 bill by December 31, 2020, and to the remaining denominations of currency, aside from the $1 bill, by December 31, 2026. Pls.' Third Mot. at 4 & n.1. Treasury objects that, inter alia, (1) redesign of the currency for counterfeit deterrence is “not on any precise schedule, ” Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Third Mot. at 16, ECF No. 164 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); (2) measures implemented already enable identification of currency for the visually impaired, id.; and (3) given the costs of testing, implementation, and publicity necessary to implement and educate users on redesigned currency, decoupling the redesign of currency to provide meaningful access from the redesign to improve security would not be in the public interest, id. at 16, 21, essentially the same conclusions reached by the Court in 2008 and in denying the plaintiffs' first and second motions to modify the injunction.

         Although the arguments regarding this pending motion are similar to those raised in conjunction with the plaintiffs' second motion, the record has changed and expanded substantially. The plaintiffs' second motion to modify the injunction was supported by a single declaration and six exhibits that generally concentrated on (1) a 2009 report studying methods of providing meaningful access to the visually impaired, [16] (2) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.