Miriam Flores v. John Huppenthal

facts alleged by them were insufficient to justify the maintenance of a statewide injunction. The panel concluded the plaintiffs were not attacking the validity of a statewide policy; rather, they were challenging local implementation after the first year of a four-hour English Language Development requirement, and its alleged negative effects on English Language Learner students, some of whom might receive less academic content than their English-speaking peers. The panel held that plaintiffs did not demonstrate standing to raise statewide claims.

Judge Friedland concurred in Parts I.1-I.4 of the majority opinion, which addressed the motion for relief from judgment, and she concurred in the judgment. Judge Friedland agreed with the majority that the district court obeyed the Supreme Court’s directives regarding how the remand in this case should proceed, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in, accordingly, granting Rule 60(b)(5) relief to defendants. Judge Friedland wrote separately to address additional arguments she understood plaintiffs to be making. Judge Friedland would hold that although plaintiffs had standing to bring a facial challenge to the…

Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, Jr.; Concurrence by Judge FRIEDLAND.

OPINION

Plaintiffs-Appellants are a class of English Language Learners (ELLs) and their parents (the Flores Plaintiffs) in Nogales Unified School District (Nogales). They appeal from the district court’s order granting the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Arizona, the State of Arizona, the Arizona State Board of Education, the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, and- the President of the Arizona Senate (collectively, the State Defendants) Rule 60(b)(5) relief from a judgment for alleged violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1701-21 . The district court also vacated its earlier injunction granting the Flores Plaintiffs statewide relief because it determined that the Flores Plaintiffs had not established a “statewide” violation of the EEOA. In arriving at its decisions, the district court followed the instructions of the Supreme Court in Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 , 129 S.Ct. 2579 , 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009).

On appeal, the Flores Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred because, 1) the four-hour English language requirement imposed on…

concurring in Parts I.1-I.4 of the majority opinion, and concurring in the judgment:

I agree with the majority that the district court obeyed the Supreme Court’s directives regarding how the remand in this case should proceed, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in, accordingly, granting Rule 60(b)(5) relief to Defendants. I nevertheless write separately becaqse I understand Plaintiffs to be making additional arguments not addressed by the majority, and I believe their arguments merit a response. Specifically, I understand Plaintiffs to be arguing that, on its face, the four-hour English Language Development (“ELD”) model adopted by the state Task Force violates the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (“EEOA”) because it requires “segregation” of English Language Learners (“ELLs”) for four hours per day even after their first year of ELD instruction. I also understand Plaintiffs to be arguing that, even if the original statewide injunction is no longer justified, an injunction should remain in place in Nogales because No-gales’s implementation of the four-hour ELD model results in loss of academic content and unnecessary segregation for ELLs and thus violates…