Term: 2008
Docket: 08-289
Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction v. Miriam Flores Et Al.
- Pro
08-289 HORNE V. FLORES DECISION BELOW: 516 F.3d 1140 CONSOLIDATED WITH 08-294 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2009 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? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-15603, 07-15605
In the case of Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction v. Miriam Flores et al., 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona's English Language Learner (ELL) program and against a lower court order that had required increased funding for ELL instruction. The issue at hand was whether or not federal law requires states to fund ELL programs beyond what is necessary for basic education under state law. The plaintiffs argued that insufficient funding violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 which mandates appropriate action to overcome language barriers impeding equal participation by students in instructional programs. However, the Supreme Court held that there was no violation as long as states are taking appropriate actions within their means and capabilities to address these issues.
In the dissenting opinion for Horne v. Flores, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling was based on an incorrect interpretation of federal law and failed to consider important facts about English Language Learner (ELL) programs in Arizona. He pointed out that there had been no significant improvement in ELL student performance since the state implemented its new language instruction model, suggesting it was not working as intended. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring evidence showing disparities between funding for ELL programs and other educational initiatives within Arizona. In his view, these factors demonstrated ongoing violations of Equal Educational Opportunities Act by failing to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers impeding equal participation by students in instructional programs.
