Gonzalez v. Douglas

269 F.Supp.3d 948 (2017)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gonzalez v. Douglas

United States District Court for the District of Arizona
269 F.Supp.3d 948 (2017)


A lawsuit in the 1970s desegregated the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD). A consent decree put in place in 1978 required TUSD to remediate the detrimental effects of past discrimination. In 1998, TUSD started a Mexican American Studies (MAS) program to further remedial efforts. The program improved the academic performance of students enrolled in its classes, who were almost all Latino. In 2006, students protested a Republican-Latino-oriented speech put together by TUSD’s superintendent, Tom Horne. Horne decided that MAS teachers had organized the protest. After reading a student-organization website supposedly promoting revolution against the government, Horne recommended terminating the MAS program without investigating what its classes actually taught. When TUSD refused, Horne lobbied for state legislation prohibiting schools from teaching classes designed for a particular ethnicity, or that promoted racial resentment, ethnic solidarity, or overthrowing the government. The statute gave the superintendent discretion to withhold 10 percent of the district’s funding unless it complied. On Horne’s last weekday as superintendent, he gave TUSD 60 days to eliminate the MAS program, ignoring three other ethnic studies programs. Former state senator Huppenthal, who succeeded Horne, delayed the statute’s effective date to take credit for eliminating the MAS program in what he called “the eternal battle of all time, the forces of collectivism against the forces of individual liberty.” Huppenthal penalized TUSD the 10 percent maximum, effectively forcing it to end the program. Horne and Huppenthal highlighted efforts to end the MAS program in their campaigns. In 2014, TUSD developed a new ethnic studies program under the directive to attain unitary status, but Huppenthal decided the new program also violated the anti-ethnic studies statute. Horne (then Arizona’s attorney general) tried to intervene on the state’s behalf to object to the new program in court. Students and parents (plaintiffs) sued the superintendent and school board (defendants), arguing that the anti-ethnic studies statute was unconstitutional. Horne and Huppenthal testified that they had no racial animus and that their efforts were not political. However, the evidence showed that Huppenthal wrote anonymous blog posts plainly showing anti-Mexican American attitudes.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Tashima, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership