Chula Vista City School District v. Bennett

holding that a $50 rule used by the Secretary of Education to evaluate applications for Impact Aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the APA because it was an interpretive rule, describing “the agency’s view of the meaning of a statute” | "When the district court's order is correct as a matter of law, it is obvious that the writ of mandamus should not be issued." | procedural due process claim found not to be ripe because substantive due process claim was not ripe | discretionary remand orders generally reviewable only by petition for writ of mandamus because such orders do not finally determine a substantive legal issue under the collateral order doctrine | Removal proper but court subsequently dismissed all of the federal causes of action and then remanded case. | ‘When the. district court’s order is correct as a matter of law, it is obvious that the writ of mandamus should not be issued.” | “In this case, the order of remand did not resolve a matter of substantive law, as in Pelleport.... The ruling of the district court was that the state cause of action alleged in [plaintiff’s] complaint was not an artfully pled federal claim that was preempted by federal labor law.”