## Facts

- English Language Learner (ELL) students and parents in the Nogales Unified School District sued Arizona in 1992 under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), alleging failure to take “appropriate action” to overcome language barriers.
- In 2000, a federal district court found Arizona violated the EEOA in Nogales because the State’s ELL incremental funding was arbitrary and not tied to actual instructional costs.
- The district court later extended relief statewide and entered additional injunctions providing continuing federal oversight; the State did not appeal those orders.
- Arizona later enacted HB 2064, increasing ELL incremental funding; because the injunctions remained in place, the changes required court approval.
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction and intervening legislative leaders sought to purge a contempt order and, alternatively, to modify or dissolve the injunctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), arguing that changed circumstances made continued enforcement inequitable.
- The district court denied Rule 60(b)(5) relief, emphasizing alleged ongoing deficiencies and rejecting HB 2064 as inadequate.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, focusing on insufficient progress in Nogales’ ELL programming.

## Issues

1. Whether the Superintendent had Article III standing to seek relief from a declaratory judgment and injunction entered against him.
2. Whether the lower courts applied an overly rigid Rule 60(b)(5) standard in declining to modify or dissolve long-running institutional injunctions.
3. Whether changed circumstances (including new instructional methods, federal education reforms, district governance changes, and increased overall funding) required a renewed assessment of EEOA compliance and the continued equity of statewide injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the Superintendent had standing because he was a named defendant subject to a declaratory judgment of violation and an injunction running against him.
- The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the lower courts misconstrued both the EEOA obligation and the Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry by focusing too narrowly on incremental ELL funding.
- The Court directed a more comprehensive changed-circumstances analysis, including the effects of updated ELL programs, federal accountability measures, district structural changes, and increases in general education funding.
- The Court rejected the view that compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act automatically satisfies the EEOA, but treated it as relevant evidence in evaluating whether language barriers are being overcome.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(5) permits modification or dissolution of prospective institutional injunctions when significant changes in law or fact make continued enforcement inequitable; the standard is flexible in long-running reform litigation.
- The EEOA requires states to take “appropriate action” to overcome language barriers; it does not mandate any particular educational model or a specific funding mechanism.
- EEOA compliance turns on whether state actions are effectively eliminating language barriers that impede equal participation, not solely on spending levels or other inputs.
- When assessing whether continued enforcement is equitable, courts must consider material intervening developments and should avoid transforming remedial orders into indefinite federal management of state education policy.

## Conclusion

The Court required lower courts to reassess ongoing EEOA injunctions under a flexible Rule 60(b)(5) framework that accounts for significant intervening changes and evaluates whether state measures are effectively overcoming language barriers, rather than treating incremental funding levels as dispositive.


Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009)