AP
July 7, 2015
A
federal appeals court on Tuesday kept alive a legal challenge brought
by former students who sued Arizona over a ban on ethnic studies in
public schools and who will
have a new chance to argue the law discriminates against Mexican
Americans.
The
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld most of a
lower court's decision. But it sent the case back to a federal court in
Tucson, where a judge will
decide whether the ban was enacted with discriminatory intent in
violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Attorneys
for the students claimed victory based on the part of the ruling that
provides them new opportunity to go before a judge and make their case
on a key provision
of their argument. A spokesman for the Arizona Attorney General's
Office said the agency was still reviewing the ruling and did not have
immediate comment.
The
law was passed by the Arizona Legislature in the same session that
lawmakers enacted the landmark immigration legislation known as SB1070.
It shuttered the Tucson
Unified School District's popular Mexican-American studies program,
sparking protests from students who they benefited from the courses. The
majority of students in the district are Hispanic. The program taught
them about historic events relating to the Mexican-American
experience such as their indigenous roots and the Mexican Revolution.
The
law prohibited courses if they promote resentment toward a race or a
class of people, are designed primarily for people of a particular
ethnic group or advocate ethnic
solidarity instead of the treatment of people as individuals.
An
attorney representing students who sued the state over the law said in
court in January that the ban was enacted with a discriminatory goal and
should be thrown out.
State attorney Leslie Kyman Cooper denied there were discriminatory
intentions, saying the law aimed to end divisive and segregated
teaching.
Richard
Martinez, a Tucson-based attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the
appeals court ruling was a victory for his clients because they get a
new opportunity to
go before a judge and make their case.
U.S.
Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima upheld most of the law in 2013, with
the exception of one portion. Tashima also issued a summary judgment
against the plaintiffs,
ending the case before attorneys could argue in full why they believe
the law was enacted with bad intentions.
Writing
for the majority, Judge Jed S. Rakoff said the lower court abused its
discretion by issuing a summary judgment instead of allowing the
plaintiffs to make a case
for their argument.
"We get to go to trial, and we get to prove our case," Martinez said.
Judge
Richard Clifton concurred on most of the opinion issued Tuesday, but he
opposed sending back the issue of discriminatory intent back to the
lower court. "As the
record stands now, there is not enough to justify the majority
opinion's conclusion," Clifton wrote.
Although
the Tucson district was forced to end its popular Mexican-American
studies program, it has recently resumed teaching ethnic studies
courses.
Arizona
Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas said in a news
release that she strongly supports the law that is being challenged.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment