Maya Arce v. John Huppenthal
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11644, 793 F.3d 968 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A facially neutral state statute that prohibits certain school curricula violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause if its enactment and enforcement are motivated by a discriminatory racial animus. A state may not remove materials from a local school classroom unless its actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, and a statutory provision that does so without furthering such a purpose may be unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.
Facts:
- The Tucson Unified School District (TUSD), where a majority of students are of Mexican or other Hispanic descent, established a Mexican American Studies (MAS) program.
- In 2007, then-Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne began efforts to eliminate the MAS program after some students walked out of a speech, an act Horne attributed to their 'Raza teachers.'
- Horne and then-State Senator John Huppenthal became the primary forces behind passing H.B. 2281, which was codified as A.R.S. § 15-112 and prohibited courses that, among other things, promote racial resentment or are designed for a particular ethnic group.
- While campaigning to become state superintendent, Huppenthal aired radio advertisements pledging to 'stop La Raza.'
- After being elected, Huppenthal commissioned an independent auditor, Cambium Learning, Inc., to investigate the MAS program.
- The resulting Cambium Report found 'no observable evidence' that the MAS program was in violation of the new statute.
- Huppenthal rejected the findings of the Cambium Report he had commissioned, conducted his own investigation, and found the MAS program to be in violation of the law.
- Faced with the loss of ten percent of its state funding, TUSD terminated the MAS program and removed its instructional materials from classrooms.
Procedural Posture:
- Teachers and students from the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Arizona state education officials.
- The complaint challenged Arizona statute A.R.S. § 15-112, which led to the termination of TUSD's Mexican American Studies (MAS) program, on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their First Amendment overbreadth and Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claims.
- Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment in their favor on all of plaintiffs' First Amendment and vagueness claims.
- Plaintiffs later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting a likelihood of success on all their constitutional claims, including equal protection and viewpoint discrimination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on one claim, finding § 15-112(A)(3) unconstitutionally overbroad, but held it was severable from the rest of the statute.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all remaining First Amendment and vagueness claims.
- The district court also, sua sponte, granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs' equal protection claim.
- The remaining student plaintiff, Maya Arce, appealed the district court's adverse rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the defendants cross-appealed the finding that § 15-112(A)(3) was unconstitutional.
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 an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 15-112), enacted and enforced to eliminate a public school's Mexican American Studies program, violate students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Rakoff
Yes, in part. The Arizona statute violates the First Amendment to the extent one of its provisions is unconstitutionally overbroad, and there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statute was enacted and enforced with discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case is remanded for a trial on the equal protection claim. Applying the Arlington Heights factors, the court found sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent to warrant a trial, including the statute's disparate impact on Mexican American students, racially charged statements by officials (e.g., Huppenthal's pledge to 'stop La Raza'), the singular focus on the MAS program, and Huppenthal's rejection of an independent audit that cleared the program. On First Amendment grounds, the court held that a state's restriction of a school curriculum must be 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.' It found that § 15-112(A)(3), which bans courses 'designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,' is unconstitutionally overbroad because it chills valuable ethnic studies courses without furthering any legitimate purpose. However, the court upheld §§ 15-112(A)(2) and (A)(4) against overbreadth and vagueness challenges, finding them to be sufficiently narrow and clear.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Clifton
No, there is not yet sufficient evidence in the record to create a genuine issue of fact that the statute was motivated by discriminatory intent. While the equal protection claim should be remanded, the majority errs by concluding that the plaintiffs have already presented enough evidence for a trial on that issue. The majority conflates antipathy toward the specific Tucson MAS program with animus toward Mexican Americans more generally, which are not the same thing. The evidence cited by the majority only shows opposition to the MAS program itself, which could be based on legitimate, non-discriminatory beliefs that the program was, in fact, promoting racial resentment. Therefore, the case should be remanded for further proceedings, which could include another summary judgment motion, rather than being sent directly to trial on the discrimination claim.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that a facially neutral law targeting school curricula can be subject to an Equal Protection challenge based on evidence of discriminatory intent in its enactment and enforcement. By applying the Arlington Heights test, the court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, such as officials' public statements and procedural irregularities, can be sufficient to send such a claim to trial. The opinion also reinforces the First Amendment principle that while states have authority over education, their actions to restrict curriculum must be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, setting a key precedent for scrutinizing laws aimed at ethnic studies programs. This case serves as a powerful example of how courts look beyond a statute's text to examine the true motivations behind government actions.
