## Facts

- Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) implemented a Mexican–American Studies (MAS) program offering K–12 courses focused on Mexican–American history, literature, government, and related topics.
- Record evidence showed MAS improved academic outcomes for participating students, who were overwhelmingly Latino.
- Arizona enacted A.R.S. §§ 15-111 and 15-112, restricting classes alleged to be designed primarily for a particular ethnic group, promote resentment, advocate ethnic solidarity over individual treatment, or promote overthrow of the U.S. government; the Superintendent could withhold up to 10% of state funding for noncompliance.
- State Superintendent Tom Horne opposed MAS, urged its termination, and issued a determination that TUSD’s MAS violated the statute, focusing on MAS while not taking comparable action against other ethnic studies programs.
- Successor Superintendent John Huppenthal campaigned on ending MAS, commissioned an audit concluding MAS did not violate the statute, rejected that conclusion, found a violation, and imposed the maximum funding penalty, pressuring TUSD to end MAS.
- Evidence included public and anonymous statements by key officials reflecting hostility toward Mexican Americans and toward the viewpoint associated with MAS.
- Students and parents sued state education officials, alleging (1) the statute’s enactment and enforcement were motivated by racial animus in violation of equal protection, and (2) the statute’s enactment and enforcement suppressed students’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.

## Issues

1. Whether the enactment of A.R.S. §§ 15-111 and 15-112 was motivated at least in part by discriminatory purpose against Mexican Americans and MAS, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether state officials enforced A.R.S. § 15-112 against MAS with discriminatory purpose, violating equal protection.
3. Whether the statute’s enactment and enforcement, as applied to eliminate MAS, violated students’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas through viewpoint-based suppression.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court found the statute’s enactment was motivated by racial animus and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The court found the statute’s enforcement against TUSD’s MAS program was motivated by racial animus and violated equal protection.
- The court held the enactment and enforcement of the statute, as used to terminate MAS, violated students’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.
- The court granted relief consistent with these constitutional violations, preventing the statute from being used to eliminate MAS on the challenged grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Equal protection discriminatory-purpose claims do not require showing discrimination was the sole motive; it is enough that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor.
- Discriminatory purpose may be shown through direct and circumstantial evidence, including disparate impact, historical background, sequence of events, departures from normal procedure or substantive norms, and legislative or administrative history.
- Where discriminatory purpose is a motivating factor, the state must justify the action under heightened constitutional scrutiny; pretextual or unsupported justifications do not suffice.
- Students have a First Amendment right to receive information and ideas in public schools; curricular authority does not permit viewpoint-based suppression driven by hostility toward a particular perspective or targeted group.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Arizona’s anti-ethnic studies measures were enacted and applied to terminate TUSD’s Mexican–American Studies program because of racial animus and disfavored viewpoints, violating equal protection and students’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.


González v. Douglas, 269 F. Supp. 3d 948 (D. Ariz. 2017)