Horne v. Flores was argued in the Supreme Court on April 20, 2009. On June 25, 2009, the opinion was issued, reversing and remanding in favor of the petitioners. Superintendent of Public Instruction Horne’s issues, as stated in the certiorari petition, were:
1. By mandating that the State of Arizona provide for a minimum amount of earmarked funding specifically allocated for English Language Learner programs statewide to comply with the “appropriate action” requirement of §1703(f) of the Equal Education Opportunity Act, did the Ninth Circuit violate the doctrine prohibiting federal courts from usurping the discretionary power of state legislatures to determine how to appropriately manage and fund their public education systems?
2. Should the phrase “appropriate action” as used in §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?
The merits and amicus briefs (Case No. 08-289) may be found at:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/april09.shtml
The June 25, 2009 opinion may be found at: Horne v. Flores
Daryl Manhart is one of the attorneys at Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. representing Superintendent Horne.
You may also find information at LinkedIn and Martindale-Hubbell.
Daryl Manhart's Blog 