Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Horne v. Flores

Docket No.: 08-289
Certiorari Granted: 1/9/2009
Argued: April 20, 2009
Decided: June 25, 2009
Consolidated with: Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores, No. 08-294 Opinion 557 U.S. ___ (2009) Granted Friday, January 9, 2009 Argued Monday, April 20, 2009 Decided Thursday, June 25, 2009

PartyNames: Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction v. Miriam Flores, et al.
Petitioner: Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction
Respondent: Miriam Flores et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction
v.
Miriam Flores et al.
Question Presented:

1. By interpreting the phrase "appropriate action" under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Education Opportunity Act as a requirement that the State of Arizona provide for a minimum amount of funding specifically allocated for English Language Learner programs statewide, did the Ninth Circuit violate the doctrine prohibiting federal courts from usurping the discretionary power of state governments to determine how to appropriately manage and fund their public education systems? 2. Should the phrase "appropriate action" as used in Section 1703(f) of the Equal Education Opportunity Act be interpreted consistently with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, where both Acts have the same purpose with respect to English Language Learners and the NCLB provides specific standards for the implementation of adequate English Language Learner programs, but the EEOA does not?

Question:

Did the lower courts err in their analysis under Rule 60(b)(5) regarding Arizona's contention that changes in education law, including increased state funding, changes in the management of the school district involved, and passage of the No Child Left Behind Act had so altered the foundations of prior court rulings that relief from such judgments was warranted?

Note:

EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE.

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 5-4
Read HORNE V. FLORES opinion (PDF)