Horne v. Flores

129 S.Ct. 2579 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1992, Ps sought a declaratory judgment holding that the State of Arizona, its Board of Education, and its Superintendent of Public Instruction (defendants) were violating the EEOA by providing inadequate ELL instruction in Nogales. After seven years of pretrial proceedings and after settling various claims, the District Court concluded that D were violating the EEOA. In the years following, the District Court entered a series of additional orders and injunctions. In January 2005, the court gave the State 90 days to 'appropriately and constitutionally fund the state's ELL programs taking into account the [Rule's] previous orders.' The State failed to meet this deadline, and in December 2005, the court held the State in contempt. Although the legislature was not then a party to the suit, the court ordered that 'the legislature has 15 calendar days after the beginning of the 2006 legislative session to comply with the January 28, 2005, Court order. The schedule of fines that the court imposed escalated from $500,000 to $2 million per day. Ds did not appeal any of the District Court's orders. In March 2006, after accruing over $20 million in fines, the state legislature passed a bill designed to implement a permanent funding solution to the problems identified by the District Court in 2000. The State Board of Education, the State of Arizona, and Ps are respondents here. The District Court granted the Legislators' motion for permissive intervention, and the Legislators and superintendent (together, Ds here) moved to purge the District Court's contempt order in light of HB 2064. Alternatively, they moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) based on changed circumstances. The court denied the motion. The court did not address petitioners' Rule 60(b)(5) claim that changed circumstances rendered continued enforcement of the original declaratory judgment order inequitable. Petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's April 2006 order, the sanctions, and the imposition of fines, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Rule 60(b)(5) relief was warranted. The Supreme Court granted certiorari