Supreme Court
Senator Kyl's Opening Remarks At The Sotamayor Confirmation Hearing
July 13 2009 15:31
U.S. Senator Jon Kyl gives his opening statement at the confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotamayor. Senator Kyl discusses the appropriate role of the judge and if Judge Sotamayor is able to fulfil her obligations should she be confirmed as our next U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Legislature Asks AZ Supreme Court For Reconsideration Of Brewer v. Burns
July 08 2009 15:35
Today, attorneys for Senate President Bob Burns and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams filed a motion for reconsideration with the Arizona Supreme Court in the case of Brewer v. Burns, et al. In the motion, the President and Speaker request the court to reconsider its order of June 23, 2009.
President Burns and Speaker Adams issued the following joint statement about the motion:
“We are pleased that the Court did not take the unprecedented action of ordering the Legislature to present bills to the Governor, but remain concerned about the impact the Court’s order will have on future legislatures.
The Arizona Constitution does not provide a specific time requirement for presentment of bills to the governor. No American court, in the absence of a specific time requirement, has ever required presentment of bills while the Legislature is still in session. We hope the justices will reconsider taking this extraordinary and unjustified step.”
Kindly see the brief at this link - Brewer v. Burns Motion for Reconsideration 7_8_9 (PDF - 6MB)
President Burns and Speaker Adams issued the following joint statement about the motion:
“We are pleased that the Court did not take the unprecedented action of ordering the Legislature to present bills to the Governor, but remain concerned about the impact the Court’s order will have on future legislatures.
The Arizona Constitution does not provide a specific time requirement for presentment of bills to the governor. No American court, in the absence of a specific time requirement, has ever required presentment of bills while the Legislature is still in session. We hope the justices will reconsider taking this extraordinary and unjustified step.”
Kindly see the brief at this link - Brewer v. Burns Motion for Reconsideration 7_8_9 (PDF - 6MB)
Robb: "Arizona Supreme Court Erred in Brewer v. Burns
June 26 2009 10:24
Bob Robb’s column in today’s Arizona Republic says the Arizona Supreme Court came to a bad conclusion in Brewer v. Burns in which the Governor asked the Court to force the Legislature to transmit bills to her. The Court said after the Legislature finally passes a bill they must send it to the Governor.
Referring to the Court’s decision Robb says “I think that the court is wrong that the bills were unconstitutionally not being transmitted, and grossly so. In fact, I think the court is so wrong that it might actually regret its hasty conclusion when it gets around to explaining itself in a full decision.”
Click on this link for the full article.
Referring to the Court’s decision Robb says “I think that the court is wrong that the bills were unconstitutionally not being transmitted, and grossly so. In fact, I think the court is so wrong that it might actually regret its hasty conclusion when it gets around to explaining itself in a full decision.”
Click on this link for the full article.
Speaker & President File Brief
June 19 2009 17:25
The Speaker and the President have filed a brief with the Arizona Supreme Court in response to Governor Jan Brewer’s petition.
Please click on the following link to see the brief (large PDF file, 90 pages) - Speaker and President's Response Brief
Oral arguments will be held in the case Tuesday morning at 10am. You can find the live stream at this link.
Please click on the following link to see the brief (large PDF file, 90 pages) - Speaker and President's Response Brief
Oral arguments will be held in the case Tuesday morning at 10am. You can find the live stream at this link.
SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in ELL Case
April 21 2009 10:28
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the ELL case.
You can find the transcript to the oral argument here at the SCOTUS website.
Additionally, a good article by the Arizona Republic on yesterday’s oral arguments can be found here.
Some key graphs include:
“The bottom line is these kids are going to learn English and quickly," David Cantelme said.
"Our fundamental quarrel with the approach of the District Court is it blinded itself to the significant changes structurally, as well as the progress that had been made, and just said it doesn't matter because this is all about funding," Starr told the court. "And that is not true."
You can find the transcript to the oral argument here at the SCOTUS website.
Additionally, a good article by the Arizona Republic on yesterday’s oral arguments can be found here.
Some key graphs include:
“The bottom line is these kids are going to learn English and quickly," David Cantelme said.
"Our fundamental quarrel with the approach of the District Court is it blinded itself to the significant changes structurally, as well as the progress that had been made, and just said it doesn't matter because this is all about funding," Starr told the court. "And that is not true."
AZ's ELL Issue Before SCOTUS Today
April 20 2009 09:50
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House and President of the Arizona Senate v. Flores, 08-294. The Court will render a decision before June 30, 2009.
The Nation’s High Court will consider whether the lower federal courts improperly refused to modify an eight-year old injunction addressing the state-wide funding that Arizona provides for programs for English language learners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether the refusal to modify the injunction complies with its earlier precedents given the significant changes that have occurred over the last eight years both in Arizona’s schools and in federal educational policy.
Ken Starr argued the case on behalf of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Kirk D. Adams, and President of the Arizona Senate, Robert L. Burns. “It is clear from the Justices’ questions that they understand the importance of this case,” Starr said. “We are hopeful that the Court will restore local control back to Arizona’s Legislature over funding the state’s ELL school programs.”
“One size does not fit all,” Speaker Adams explained. “Only the Legislature has the authority and the ability to tailor policy solutions that meet the diverse educational needs of our state. It’s time for the federal courts to return this area of policy to the elected representatives of the People of Arizona.”
Speaker Adams continued: “I hope the Court issues a decision that enables Arizona to return to the task of implementing its highly-effective, intensive, four-hour a day program of immersion in English language instruction. This program was designed by national experts to immerse Arizona ELL students in a course of reading, writing, grammar, and listening and speaking skills. We are confident that this program will work, and will quickly and cost-effectively teach these students English.”
For more information about this case please see our previous post at this link.
The Nation’s High Court will consider whether the lower federal courts improperly refused to modify an eight-year old injunction addressing the state-wide funding that Arizona provides for programs for English language learners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether the refusal to modify the injunction complies with its earlier precedents given the significant changes that have occurred over the last eight years both in Arizona’s schools and in federal educational policy.
Ken Starr argued the case on behalf of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Kirk D. Adams, and President of the Arizona Senate, Robert L. Burns. “It is clear from the Justices’ questions that they understand the importance of this case,” Starr said. “We are hopeful that the Court will restore local control back to Arizona’s Legislature over funding the state’s ELL school programs.”
“One size does not fit all,” Speaker Adams explained. “Only the Legislature has the authority and the ability to tailor policy solutions that meet the diverse educational needs of our state. It’s time for the federal courts to return this area of policy to the elected representatives of the People of Arizona.”
Speaker Adams continued: “I hope the Court issues a decision that enables Arizona to return to the task of implementing its highly-effective, intensive, four-hour a day program of immersion in English language instruction. This program was designed by national experts to immerse Arizona ELL students in a course of reading, writing, grammar, and listening and speaking skills. We are confident that this program will work, and will quickly and cost-effectively teach these students English.”
For more information about this case please see our previous post at this link.
SCOTUS to hear AZ ELL case next Monday
April 13 2009 13:00
Next Monday morning, April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and President of the Senate v. Flores. The issue involves the interference of the federal courts with the authority of the Arizona legislature to establish education policy for English Language Learners.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.