| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Suit about educational opportunities for students who are minorities or who have limited English proficiency. |
| Posture: | At least 7 years of pre-trial. District court finds defendants liable under EEOA for insufficient ELL funding. State fails to comply with deadline, is held in contempt. Ct. App. Affirms. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Was the state fulfilling its obligations by some means? |
| Holding: | Yes, reversed. |
| Rule: | An organization is only liable if it fails to take "appropriate action." |
| Reasoning: | The wording shows that congress intended to allow states latitude in
addressing these needs.
Injunctions tend to stay in place for years, and circumstances can change. Consent decrees present a risk of collusion. We want flexibility in ensuring that state officials fulfil their responsibilities. There might be lots of "appropriate actions" that would be transparent to the budget. |
| Dicta: | Breyer (dissenting): there was a lot of evidence, and the lower court fairly considered it. The record doesn't support the finding that it did not. |