Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House v. Flores
Justices accept Arizona’s English language case (Jan. 9, 2009)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Arizona is providing enough funding for English-language learner programs under federal law.
The 1992, parents from the Nogales Unified School District filed a class-action lawsuit that charged the state with failing to comply with the Equal Education Opportunity Act, which requires states to “take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.”
In 2000, the U.S. District Court in Tuscon ruled in favor of the parents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling.
In 2006, the state legislature passed a law intended to address that ruling by increasing the so-called English language learner funds from $340 per student to $450.
But the appeals court found that the state law did not adequately remedy the situation, pointing to a two-year limit for the amount of time that an ELL can benefit from state funds for specialized instruction, and a provision, which allows school districts to replace state funds with federal funds in order to finance these programs.
On Jan. 9, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated cases of Horne v. Flores and Speaker of the Arizona House v. Flores. The justices are expected to hear oral arguments sometime in April.
Question presented: Whether the courts below improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children.
Justices ease rules on English language learner programs (June 25, 2009)
A divided Supreme Court ruled today that Arizona has provided enough funding for English language learner programs under federal law.
The 1992, parents from the Nogales Unified School District filed a class-action lawsuit that charged the state with failing to comply with the Equal Education Opportunity Act, which requires states to “take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.”
In 2000, the U.S. District Court in Tuscon ruled in favor of the parents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling.
In 2006, the state legislature passed a law intended to address that ruling by increasing the so-called English language learner funds from $340 per student to $450.
But the appeals court found that the state law did not adequately remedy the situation, pointing to a two-year limit for the amount of time that an ELL can benefit from state funds for specialized instruction, and a provision, which allows school districts to replace state funds with federal funds in order to finance these programs.
On Jan. 9, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated cases of Horne v. Flores and Speaker of the Arizona House v. Flores.
On June 25, the justices reversed and remanded the case to the lower court in a 5-4 decision by Justice Samuel Alito.
"The EEOA's 'appropriate action' requirement grants States broad latitude to design, fund, and implement ELL programs that suit local needs and account for local conditions," Alito wrote. "A proper Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry should recognize this and should ask whether, as a result of structural and managerial improvements, Nogales is now providing equal educational opportunities to ELL students."
Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Question presented: Whether the courts below improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children.