## Facts

- California voters approved Proposition 227 in 1998, replacing many bilingual education programs for public school students with limited English proficiency (LEP) with “structured English immersion.”
- The initiative directed that LEP students be educated primarily in English during a temporary transition period generally not intended to exceed one year, with students grouped by similar English proficiency.
- Proposition 227 defined structured English immersion as an English acquisition process in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English, with curriculum and presentation designed for children learning the language.
- The initiative permitted waivers from immersion in specified circumstances, including when a child already knew English, was age 10 or older and an alternative program would better serve the child, or had tried immersion without success.
- LEP students, their parents, and advocacy organizations challenged Proposition 227, alleging it would deny equal educational opportunity and discriminate based on national origin and language.
- After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected a facial Equal Protection Clause challenge and entered judgment for state officials.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 227 facially violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring structured English immersion and limiting bilingual education for LEP students.
2. Whether Proposition 227 was enacted with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect.
3. If no suspect classification or invidious intent is shown, whether Proposition 227 nonetheless fails rational basis review.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants.
- The court held Proposition 227 does not create a facially suspect classification and regulates educational methodology for English learners rather than race or national origin.
- The plaintiffs failed to prove that discriminatory animus was a predominant motive for enactment.
- Applying rational basis review, the court concluded the policy was rationally related to legitimate state interests, including improving English literacy and accelerating English acquisition among LEP students.

## Legal Principles

- A facial equal protection challenge generally requires showing either an inherently discriminatory classification or enactment with discriminatory purpose coupled with discriminatory effect.
- Policies aimed at language-based educational instruction, without proof of national-origin or race discrimination, typically receive rational basis review rather than heightened scrutiny.
- Under rational basis review, a law is constitutional if any conceivable legitimate governmental purpose supports it and the means are rationally related to that purpose; courts generally defer to legislative or voter policy choices in educational methodology absent invidious intent.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Proposition 227 against a facial equal protection challenge because it did not classify students by race or national origin, the record did not establish discriminatory intent, and the English-immersion requirements were rationally related to legitimate state educational objectives.


Valeria v. Davis, 307 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2002)