Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction v. Miriam Flores, et al.
Education Law, Statutory Interpretation
1. By interpreting the phrase "appropriate action" under Section 1703(f) of the Equal
Education Opportunity Act as a requirement that the State of Arizona provide for a
minimum amount of funding specifically allocated for English Language Learner
programs statewide, did the Ninth Circuit violate the doctrine prohibiting federal
courts from usurping the discretionary power of state governments to determine
how to appropriately manage and fund their public education systems?
2. Should the phrase "appropriate action" as used in Section 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
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader