G.I. FORUM v. State of Texas, 5:15-cv-00219

LULAC sued under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act seeking statewide relief requiring TEA and two San Antonio school districts (SWISD, NEISD) to effectively oversee programs for Latino English Language Learner (ELL) students; NEISD claims were later dismissed and only SWISD remains.
LULAC seeks certification of a Statewide Class of "all Latino English Language Learner students attending public secondary schools in Texas" and an SWISD Subclass of the same definition limited to SWISD.
LULAC proposed as class representatives members whose children were ELLs; by the time of the briefing two identified children had exited the ELL program and one remaining child (S.M.P.) was a fifth grader (not yet in secondary school).
The magistrate judge recommended denying class certification for lack of standing; the district court declined to adopt that standing rationale but independently analyzed Rule 23 requirements.
The court found LULAC failed to show any class representative is actually a member of the proposed classes (present secondary-school ELLs), and LULAC admitted it does not track members’ districts or ELL status.
The court denied class certification under Rule 23 for failure to meet the requirement that a class representative be a class member, and denied without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proposed representatives have Article III standing	LULAC argued at least one child (S.M.P.) faced imminent risk of becoming a secondary-school ELL and thus has standing	Defendants argued the identified children had been exited or were not yet secondary students, so no concrete injury	Court declined to decide standing conclusively; proceeded to Rule 23 analysis
Whether representative must be a member of the class under Rule 23	LULAC suggested its representatives are proper despite timing (argued some could "will attend" secondary school)	Defendants argued representatives are not class members because the class is defined as presently "attending" secondary school	Court held representative must be a member of the class and that LULAC failed to show any representative is a class member
Adequacy/typicality of representatives given factual variance	LULAC argued similarity of harms and risk justified representation	Defendants emphasized differences in immediacy and uncertainty between current secondary ELLs and proposed reps	Court found variance significant and declined to apply Gratz exception sua sponte; adequacy not satisfied
Burden of proof for class certification and remedy	LULAC sought class certification and appointment of counsel	Defendants opposed certification; magistrate recommended denial	Court held LULAC failed to meet its Rule 23 burden and denied certification without prejudice

Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (class representative must be part of the class)
East Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (class representative requirement discussion)
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (narrow exception where representative not in class but claims closely align)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (standing—substantial-risk/imminence standard)
Camp v. Allstate Ins. Co., 100 F.3d 953 (5th Cir.) (representative must be class member)
United States v. Texas (LULAC VI), 601 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (prior LULAC litigation and encouragement to include local districts)