Flores v. Arizona was a federal class action, filed in 1992 and closed in 2015, over whether Arizona spent enough state money to teach English to students who didn’t speak it at home. It began in the Nogales Unified School District, produced a 2000 ruling that the state’s funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” triggered years of legislative defiance and civil contempt fines, and ended at the U.S. Supreme Court with a decision that made it easier for states to get out from under long-running federal court orders.
What the Lawsuit Challenged
In August 1992, parents in the Nogales Unified School District sued the state of Arizona in federal court. Their claim was simple: Arizona wasn’t funding English language instruction at a level that let their children meaningfully participate in school.1United States District Court. Flores v. Arizona – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The legal basis was Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which makes it illegal for a school system to fail to “take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students.”2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 20 USC 1703 – Denial of Equal Educational Opportunity Prohibited In 1997, the court certified a class covering all limited-English-proficient students in the Nogales district and their parents and guardians.1United States District Court. Flores v. Arizona – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
How Courts Judge English Learner Programs
Every ruling in the case turned on the three-part test from the 1981 Fifth Circuit case Castañeda v. Pickard. A state’s program must rest on a legitimate educational theory, be implemented with enough staff, materials, and money to make that theory work, and actually produce results for students after a reasonable trial period.3United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Flores v. Horne
Nobody disputed that Arizona had adopted a sound theory. The whole fight was about the second prong: whether the money matched the plan.
The 2000 Ruling Against Arizona
On January 24, 2000, U.S. District Judge Alfredo Marquez found Arizona in violation of the EEOA. The state was spending roughly $150 per English learner on supplemental language instruction, a figure drawn from a 1987–88 cost study that had itself estimated actual program costs at $450 per student. Even the state conceded the original estimates were unreliable, yet the legislature had never updated the study or adjusted for inflation.4Justia. Flores v. Arizona, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Ariz. 2000)
Setting funding at roughly a third of an already outdated estimate was “arbitrary and capricious,” the court held, and bore no rational connection to the cost of the instructional approach Arizona itself had approved. Arizona failed the second prong of Castañeda.5Justia. Flores v. Arizona, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Ariz. 2000) The state did not appeal.
Contempt Fines and HB 2064
Arizona lost, chose not to appeal, and then did not comply. Bills to commission a proper cost study failed in the legislature, and funding stayed at the level the court had already condemned.3United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Flores v. Horne
In December 2005, the district court held the state in civil contempt and ordered escalating daily fines, starting at $500,000 per day on January 24, 2006, and rising as high as $2 million per day if the legislature still hadn’t acted by session’s end.6Justia. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) The fines accumulated past $20 million before the legislature moved.
In March 2006, Arizona passed HB 2064. The bill created the Arizona Structured English Immersion Fund to cover the additional cost of English learner instruction and the Statewide Compensatory Instruction Fund to pay for supplemental services like small-group instruction, extended school days, and summer school for current and recently reclassified English learners. It also appropriated $10 million for compensatory instruction in fiscal year 2006–07.7Arizona Legislature. House Bill 2064
The instructional side of the picture had also shifted. In November 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, requiring structured English immersion instead of bilingual education. That change in methodology would matter enormously when the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Horne v. Flores
On June 25, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Horne v. Flores, 5–4. Justice Alito wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.6Justia. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009)
The majority held that the lower courts had been too rigid in refusing to reconsider the 2000 order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) allows relief from a court order when prospective enforcement is no longer equitable because circumstances have changed, and the majority found that the lower courts had effectively treated the original injunction as permanent.6Justia. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009)
The Court sent the case back with instructions to weigh four developments:
- Arizona’s shift from bilingual education to structured English immersion, which state findings and research suggested was more effective for English learners.
- The No Child Left Behind Act, which changed how Arizona delivered English learner education, brought new federal money, and produced testing data on student progress.
- Management reforms in Nogales, including smaller classes, better teacher quality, standardized curriculum planning, and correction of materials shortages.
- Increases in overall education funding available in Nogales, not just money earmarked specifically for English learners.
One sentence from the majority opinion carried the case’s national significance: the EEOA’s “ultimate focus is on the quality of educational programming and services provided to students, not the amount of money spent on them.”6Justia. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) That framing gave states substantial room to argue that non-monetary improvements could satisfy their federal obligations.
How the Case Ended
On March 28, 2013, Judge Collins granted Arizona’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ statewide claims and vacated the original 2000 judgment. The judge found that the adoption of structured English immersion, NCLB, management reforms, and increased funding had collectively changed the factual foundation of the case. The plaintiffs’ remaining challenge to a “four-hour model” of daily English instruction could not proceed statewide because the evidence covered only a few districts.
The plaintiffs appealed. In June 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the four-hour-model challenge on the merits and finding no evidentiary support for claims that English learners were being unlawfully segregated. The case closed on August 7, 2015, more than 23 years after it was filed.
What Arizona Does Now for English Learners
The funding structure created under HB 2064 is still the backbone of Arizona’s English learner system. The Arizona Structured English Immersion Fund and the Statewide Compensatory Instruction Fund continue to direct state money to English learner instruction on top of base per-pupil funding.7Arizona Legislature. House Bill 2064
On the instructional side, schools use one of four approved structured English immersion models: pull-out, two-hour, newcomer, or 50-50 dual language immersion. The dual language option requires a parental waiver. State rules set a minimum of 120 minutes per day of English language development in grades K–5 and 100 minutes per day in grades 6–12. Students are assessed using the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA), and those who reach the proficient level are reclassified into mainstream classrooms.8Arizona Department of Education. EL Instructional Services
If you’re a parent of a child identified as an English learner, federal law requires the school to notify you in writing within 30 days of the start of the school year, describe your child’s English proficiency level and the programs available, and honor your right to opt your child out.9U.S. Department of Justice / U.S. Department of Education. Information for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Parents and Guardians In Arizona, if you want a bilingual placement rather than English-only immersion, you have to request the dual language model through a parental waiver.8Arizona Department of Education. EL Instructional Services
Why the Case Matters Beyond Arizona
Flores v. Arizona is a working example of institutional reform litigation: a federal court finds a state statute or funding scheme unlawful, orders a fix, and then supervises compliance for years. The one-sentence “appropriate action” requirement in the EEOA was enough to sustain that supervision for more than two decades.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. Flores changed the exit rules for that kind of case. By requiring lower courts to take changed circumstances seriously under Rule 60(b)(5), and by locating the EEOA’s focus in educational quality rather than dollar figures, the Court gave state defendants a stronger path out of aging injunctions. That reasoning has since been drawn on in institutional reform disputes well outside education, including prison and desegregation cases where federal courts supervise state institutions over long periods.6Justia. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009)