On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Horne v. Flores, reversing the decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and sending the case back with instructions to consider improvements the state has made in the way schools teach English learners. Plaintiffs' lead attorney Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest said the Supreme Court judgment reduced the importance of the amount of money Arizona spends to help English language learners. Instead, it gives the 9th Circuit an opportunity to reexamine the program in place to help the students.

Hogan said he is disappointed the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appeals court that Arizona was not fully funding its language programs, but remanding the case back to the lower court keeps the legal battle alive. “This will give us an opportunity now to fully test the existing program that’s in place for English language learners in Arizona and whether or not that program is working,” Hogan said.

Education Law Center—along with Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy, (META Inc.), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Public Advocates, Inc., and others—filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, the “Brief of Civil Rights Organizations” in support of respondents.

The original action was filed in 1992 by a class of ELL students in Nogales, Arizona, claiming that the State had failed to assist ELL students in overcoming their language barriers under the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA).  Plaintiffs prevailed, proving that the State had violated the rights of ELL students under the EEOA by failing to take “appropriate action” that would allow ELL students to become proficient in English.  The Court also ordered the State to provide adequate funding of programs for ELL students in 2000, an order that the State never complied with.

Although the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings that had been favorable for the plaintiffs (ELL students), MALDEF  points out a number of positive, favorable rulings in the Court’s decision:

1. The Court upheld an ELL student’s right to learn English and a State’s duty to ensure that that ELL students overcome language barriers as required under the EEOA: “There is no question that the goal of the EEOA—overcoming language barriers—is a vitally important one, and our decision will not in any way undermine efforts to achieve that goal.”
2. The Court held that ELL funding is relevant, and ordered the district court on remand to determine “whether the State’s budget for general education funding, in addition to any local revenues, is currently supporting EEOA-compliant ELL programming in Nogales.”
3. The Court struck down the state of Arizona’s argument that compliance under NCLB would satisfy compliance under the EEOA.

Prepared by Dan Goldman: July 2009

Copyright © 2009 Education Justice. All Rights Reserved.