Miriam Flores v. John Huppenthal, 789 F.3d 994

Background

Flores Plaintiffs (a certified class of Nogales Unified School District ELL students and their parents) sued Arizona in 1992 under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), alleging inadequate funding and programming for English Language Learners (ELLs).
District court found EEOA violations in 2000 and imposed relief statewide; the state later enacted HB 2064 and Proposition 203 adopting Structured English Immersion (SEI) models, including Task Force models requiring a minimum of four hours daily English Language Development (ELD) in year one.
Multiple rounds of appeals and remands followed: appellate and Supreme Court guidance focused a Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry on whether changed circumstances meant the original injunction was no longer required to vindicate the EEOA.
On remand the district court held evidentiary hearings, found substantial statewide and Nogales-specific changes (adoption of SEI models, NCLB, Nogales reforms, increased funding and accountability), and granted Rule 60(b)(5) relief for Nogales while vacating the statewide injunction for lack of statewide EEOA violation proof.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Rule 60(b)(5) relief given changed circumstances and found Plaintiffs failed to show widespread statewide injury necessary to sustain a statewide injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(5) relief was proper	Flores: State's four-hour ELD regime still violates EEOA and relief should be denied	State: Changed circumstances (Task Force models, NCLB, Nogales reforms, funding) render continued injunction inequitable	Court: No abuse of discretion — changed circumstances make State action "appropriate"; relief granted
Whether Arizona's four-hour ELD requirement facially violates EEOA	Flores: Four-hour model causes segregation and loss of academic content beyond year one, violating EEOA	State: Model and local implementation are permissible and vary by district; State has latitude in methods	Court: Plaintiffs attack implementation, not a uniform statewide violation; no statewide EEOA breach shown
Whether Plaintiffs have standing to seek statewide relief	Flores: They can challenge statewide policy because state law mandates uniform models	State: Plaintiffs are a Nogales class and lack proof of widespread statewide injury	Court: No standing for statewide injunction absent proof of widespread, systemwide injury; statewide relief vacated
Whether local implementation in Nogales still violates EEOA	Flores: Nogales continues to deny academic content and unnecessarily segregates ELLs	State: Nogales implemented structural reforms, accountability, compensatory programs, and showed improved outcomes	Held: District court findings that Nogales now has effective ELD and remedies were not clearly erroneous; injunction not justified on record

Key Cases Cited

Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (Supreme Court guidance on Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry and "appropriate action" under the EEOA)
Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2008) (prior Ninth Circuit opinion addressing funding and Rule 60(b)(5) issues)
Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981) (framework for EEOA "appropriate action": plan, implementation, results)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (standing limits and requirement of widespread injury for systemwide relief)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing principles)