Maya Arce v. John Huppenthal

Opinion by Judge Rakoff; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Clifton.

OPINION

The children of the Tucson Unified School District (“TUSD”), a majority of whom are of Mexican or other Hispanic descent, have a natural interest in knowing more about their cultural heritage and that of their community — or so the school board of Tucson decided, inaugurating a Mexican American Studies (“MAS”) program in the Tucson public schools. Arizona state superintendents of education, in the belief that MAS was being perverted into a program for promoting ethnocentrism and reverse racism, successfully sponsored and implemented legislation that did away with the program. The issue this case presents is whether in so doing they and their colleagues violated the constitutional rights of TUSD students.

In 2010, the Arizona legislature passed H.B. 2281, codified at Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 15-111 and 15-112, which directly led to the elimination of the MAS program. The statute prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that: (1) “Promote the overthrow of the United States government,” (2) “Promote…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with and concur in most of the majority opinion, but I have one significant disagreement that prevents me from concurring in full. The majority opinion concludes, at 976-77, that there are genuine issues of fact regarding whether the enactment and/or enforcement of A.R.S. § 15-112 was motivated at least in part by a discriminatory intent. It thus orders that the equal protection claim be remanded for trial. I agree that the equal protection claim should be remanded, but I cannot agree that Plaintiffs have already presented sufficient evidence to establish that there is a genuine dispute of material fact on that issue. We should simply remand for further proceedings, without precluding further consideration of summary judgment.

The majority opinion concludes, specifically, that sufficient evidence was presented to raise a genuine dispute as to whether the enactment and/or enforcement of the statute “was motivated, at least in part, by an intent to discriminate against MAS students on the basis of their race or national origin.” Majority op. at 981. In doing so, however, the majority opinion conflates antipathy toward Tucson’s…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAYA ARCE; her father and next Nos. 13-15657 best friend, SEAN ARCE, 13-15760 Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00623- v. AWT

DIANE DOUGLAS, Arizona OPINION Superintendent of Public Instruction, in her official capacity, ARIZONA

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND

MEMBERS OF THE ARIZONA STATE

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge,* Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2015—San Francisco, California

Filed July 7, 2015

* The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. Before: John T. Noonan and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.**

Opinion by Judge Rakoff; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Clifton

SUMMARY***

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s…