Horne v. Flores
557 U.S. (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When considering a motion for relief from an institutional reform injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), a court must apply a flexible standard that assesses whether significant changes in facts or law demonstrate that the defendant is now satisfying its underlying federal statutory obligations, rather than narrowly focusing on compliance with the original judgment's specific terms.
Facts:
- In 1992, English language-learner (ELL) students and their parents in the Nogales Unified School District in Arizona initiated a legal action.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the State of Arizona was failing to provide adequate funding and resources for ELL instruction, impeding their equal participation in educational programs.
- Over the course of the litigation, Arizona voters passed Proposition 203 in 2000, which mandated a statewide change in ELL instructional methodology from bilingual education to a 'structured English immersion' (SEI) approach.
- The Nogales school district implemented significant structural and management reforms under a new superintendent between 2000 and 2005, which improved teacher quality, reduced class sizes, and eliminated shortages of instructional materials.
- Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which introduced new federal standards, accountability measures, and funding streams for ELL programs nationwide.
- In 2006, the Arizona legislature passed HB 2064, which increased ELL-specific funding and created new funds to cover additional costs of ELL programming, though it also imposed a two-year limit on such funding per student.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of English language-learner students and their parents (Flores) sued the State of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).
- In 2000, after a bench trial, the District Court entered a declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs, finding Arizona's funding for ELL programs was arbitrary and violated the EEOA.
- In 2001, the District Court extended its order to apply statewide, granting an injunction requiring the state to establish a funding system rationally related to the actual costs of ELL instruction.
- After the state failed to comply, the District Court held it in contempt in 2005 and imposed escalating daily fines.
- The Speaker of the State House and President of the State Senate (Legislators) intervened in the case.
- The Legislators and the state superintendent of public instruction (petitioners) moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), arguing changed circumstances.
- The District Court denied the motion. The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the Rule 60(b)(5) motion. The petitioners then successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) by denying relief from a judgment concerning educational funding when it focuses narrowly on the original funding violation, without fully considering significant intervening changes in facts and law that may show the state is now fulfilling its broader duties under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes. A court abuses its discretion by applying an improperly rigid standard to a Rule 60(b)(5) motion in an institutional reform case. The inquiry is not merely whether the original judgment has been satisfied, but more broadly whether continued prospective enforcement is equitable in light of significant changes. The lower courts erred by focusing excessively on the adequacy of 'incremental funding'—the specific issue in the 2000 judgment—instead of conducting a broad inquiry into whether Arizona, through new teaching methods, new federal laws like NCLB, local management reforms, and overall funding increases, was now taking 'appropriate action' to meet its obligations under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). This flexible approach is crucial in institutional reform cases to respect principles of federalism and return control to state and local officials once a federal violation is remedied.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
No. The lower courts did not abuse their discretion because they fairly considered all the changed circumstances presented by the petitioners. The focus on incremental funding was proper because the state's failure to provide adequate resources was the sole basis for the original finding of a statutory violation. The majority mischaracterizes the case as 'institutional reform litigation' to apply special standards that distort Rule 60(b)(5) and improperly relieve the petitioners of their burden to prove that the decree's objectives have been met. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the District Court's conclusion that, despite some changes, the state had still not developed a rational funding system to meet the needs of ELL students, and therefore an ongoing violation of the EEOA persisted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the landscape for modifying or terminating long-term institutional reform injunctions, making it easier for state and local governments to end federal court oversight. By mandating a 'flexible' and broad inquiry that looks beyond the four corners of the original decree, the Court prioritizes federalism and the autonomy of democratically elected officials. The ruling signals that federal courts should defer to new state-level policy choices, legislative schemes, and administrative improvements as potential remedies for past violations, rather than rigidly enforcing the specific solutions imposed by an earlier judgment. This shifts the focus from strict compliance with a court order to a more holistic assessment of whether the underlying statutory goal is now being met through different means.
Unlock the full brief for Horne v. Flores