## Facts

- The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), other Mexican American organizations, and individual Mexican American Texas residents filed a class action against Ann Richards (Governor), the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and its commissioner, and regents and officials of Texas public universities (collectively, the State).
- Plaintiffs represented a certified class of Mexican Americans residing in a 41-county area along the Texas–Mexico border who were, or would be, students at Texas public senior colleges, universities, or health-related institutions (or would have attended but for the challenged allocation of resources).
- Plaintiffs alleged that Texas’s statewide approach to funding and program placement in public higher education provided fewer opportunities and fewer resources to Mexican Americans in the border region, violating the Texas Constitution’s equal-rights guarantee (Tex. Const. art. I, § 3).
- At trial, plaintiffs offered evidence of disparities, including findings that the border region received about 10% of state funds for public universities despite having about 20% of the state’s population; that Hispanic students constituted a much larger share of public-university enrollment in the border region than elsewhere; and that border-area students had to travel much farther to reach a university offering a broad range of programs than students outside the region.
- The trial court also found these disparities existed against a historical background of discrimination against Mexican Americans in South Texas.
- The State responded that its appropriations and allocation decisions were made using race-neutral criteria and formulas, and that differences in funding reflected nonracial factors such as program mix, staffing needs, facilities and equipment demands, and other budget considerations.
- The trial court entered a declaratory judgment for plaintiffs, concluding the Texas higher-education framework violated the Texas Constitution, and issued broad injunctive relief, including an order barring defendants from giving effect to certain higher-education appropriations measures.
- The State took a direct appeal to the Texas Supreme Court from the final judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether disparities in funding, program availability, and geographic access for the border region established a violation of the Texas Constitution’s equal-rights clause absent proof that current state decisionmakers acted with discriminatory intent.
2. Whether a history of discrimination against Mexican Americans in the border region, combined with present-day disparate outcomes, was sufficient to support a declaration that Texas’s public higher-education framework was unconstitutional.
3. Whether the trial court’s sweeping declaratory and injunctive relief exceeded proper judicial authority in an area committed primarily to the Legislature’s appropriations and policy choices.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment for the State defendants.
- The Court accepted that plaintiffs showed significant disparities affecting the border region, but held that those disparities, standing alone, did not prove a constitutional violation under Tex. Const. art. I, § 3.
- The Court held plaintiffs did not carry their burden to show that the challenged funding and program-allocation decisions were made or maintained because of intentional discrimination against Mexican Americans.
- The Court rejected the trial court’s broad remedy, concluding that invalidating or restraining statewide appropriations and restructuring higher education went beyond what the record and the constitutional claim justified.

## Legal Principles

- A facially race-neutral public policy does not violate the Texas equal-rights clause solely because it produces disproportionate effects; proof of discriminatory purpose is generally required for an equal-rights claim based on disparate outcomes.
- Statistical and regional disparities may be evidence in an equal-rights case, but they do not by themselves establish that government actors adopted or continued the challenged policies for a discriminatory reason.
- Evidence of historical discrimination can provide background, but it does not substitute for proof that present officials are acting with a prohibited intent in current funding and program decisions.
- Separation-of-powers limits restrict courts from assuming the Legislature’s appropriations and higher-education planning role; equitable relief must be tied to a proven constitutional violation and should not amount to a statewide redesign of budgetary policy.
- The Texas Constitution does not require equal per-capita distribution of higher-education funds or uniform placement of comprehensive programs across all regions.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court held that although plaintiffs demonstrated serious disparities affecting Mexican Americans in the South Texas border region, the Texas equal-rights clause was not violated without proof that current higher-education funding and program-allocation choices were driven by intentional discrimination, and the trial court’s broad statewide injunction and declaration could not stand.


Ann Richards, Governor of the State of Texas v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 868 S.W.2d 306 (1994)