Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 17

Richard M. Martinez, No. 007763 Steven A. Reiss (admitted pro hac vice)
1
P.O. Box 43250 Luna N. Barrington (admitted pro hac vice)
2 Tucson, Arizona 85733 David Fitzmaurice (admitted pro hac vice)
Telephone: (502) 327-4797 WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
3 richard@richardmartinezlaw.com 767 Fifth Avenue
4 New York, New York 10153
Robert S. Chang (admitted pro hac vice) Telephone: (212) 310-8000
5 Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Steven.Reiss@weil.com
Equality, Ronald A. Peterson Clinic Luna.Barrington@weil.com
6
Seattle University School of Law David.Fitzmaurice@weil.com
7 1215 East Columbia Street, Law Annex
Seattle, Washington 98122-4130 James W. Quinn (admitted pro hac vice)
8 Telephone: (206) 398-4025 JW Quinn ADR
9 changro@seattleu.edu 120 W. 45th Street, 38th Floor
New York, New York 10036
10 Telephone: (646) 766-0073
Counsel for Plaintiffs quinn@jwquinnlaw.com
11
12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13
14 NOAH GONZLEZ; JESS Case No. 4:10-cv-00623-AWT
GONZLEZ, his father and next friend; et
15 al., Honorable A. Wallace Tashima
Plaintiffs,
16
vs. Plaintiffs Remedy Reply Brief
17
DIANE DOUGLAS, Superintendent of Oral Argument Requested
18 Public Instruction, in her Official Capacity;
19 et al.,

20 Defendants.
21
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
22
Since the outset of this litigation seven years ago, Plaintiffs have requested two
23
straightforward remedies: (1) a declaration that ARS 15-112 was unconstitutionally
24
enacted and enforced; and (2) an injunction permanently enjoining Defendants from
25
further enforcing ARS 15-112. Both remedies are typical when courts find laws to be
26
unconstitutional.
27
28
1
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 17

1 Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs requested declaratory relief indeed, they

2 properly concede that such relief is warranted given the Courts findings. Defendants
3 nevertheless object to Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief because the record does not
4 support a finding that Superintendent Douglas will continue her predecessors conduct.
5 But given the Courts decision to bifurcate the liability and remedy proceedings, the trial
6 record to date pertains to the liability phase, not the remedies phase. And as
7 Defendants are undoubtedly aware evidence obtained from discovery clearly
8 demonstrates that Superintendent Douglas has extensively and persistently enforced ARS
9 15-112. Based on these facts, there is no basis to assume that Superintendent Douglas
10 will not continue her enforcement absent a permanent injunction.
11 Defendants efforts to shield Superintendent Douglas from the Courts ruling
12 should, therefore, be rejected. Superintendent Douglas and the members of the Board of
13 Education as well as their successors in office should be permanently enjoined
14 from enforcing ARS 15-112.
15 ARGUMENT
16 I. Superintended Douglas Has Extensively Enforced ARS 15-112
17 In an attempt to distinguish Superintendent Douglas from her predecessors
18 Superintendents Horne and Huppenthal Defendants maintain that Superintendent
19 Douglas played no role in any unconstitutional activity and has taken no action to
20 harm the Tucson Unified School District or its students under [ARS 15-112]. See
21 Defs. Remedy Br. at 24. This claim is belied by uncontroverted deposition and
22 documentary evidence.
23 Superintendent Douglas enforcement of ARS 15-112 perpetuated the
24 unconstitutional actions of her predecessors and has been a consistent part of Plaintiffs
25 claims. See Ex. A at 54 (Compl.); Ex. B at 5356 (Rule 56.1 Statement). Through
26 discovery, Plaintiffs obtained substantial evidence of Superintendent Douglas
27 enforcement efforts, including her adoption of Superintendent Huppenthals January 2,
28
2
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 17

1 2015 finding that TUSD violated ARS 15-112 and her subsequent extensive monitoring
2 of TUSD to ensure compliance with the statute. Plaintiffs would have presented this
3 evidence as part of their case in chief at trial had the Court not ordered the bifurcation of
4 the liability and remedy phases. Having proven that ARS 15-112 was enacted and
5 enforced unconstitutionally and thus prevailed as to liability, the present administrations
6 enforcement efforts of ARS 15-112 are now highly relevant to the remedies phase of
7 this proceeding.1
8 It is undisputed that Superintendent Douglas monitored TUSDs Culturally
9 Relevant Curriculum (CRC) program the successor program to the MAS program,
10 which was unconstitutionally terminated by Superintendent Huppenthal to determine
11 whether it complied with ARS 15-112. Indeed, by Defendants own admission,
12 Superintendent Douglas ensure[d] that classes offered by [TUSDs] department of
13 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy . . . did not violate A.R.S. 15-112. Ex. C at 32 (JPTO).
14 Superintendent Douglas enforcement of ARS 15-112 began with her adoption
15 of Superintendent Huppenthals January 2, 2015 finding that the CRC program violated
16 the statute. See Ex. D (Huppenthal finding). Superintendent Huppenthal issued this
17 finding on his final day in office and gave TUSD until March 4, 2015 to correct the
18 violations or face a 10% reduction in state funding. Id. Huppenthal was unable to
19 explain the reasoning behind his finding, deferring to members of his staff, such as
20 Jennifer Johnson. Likewise, despite adopting Huppenthals finding, Superintendent
21 Douglas was unable to explain the basis for the cited violations. Indeed, during her
22 deposition, Superintendent Douglas testified that some of the violations discussed in the
23 finding were not actually violations and were examples of a rather nice philosophy. See
24
1
25 Though Plaintiffs do not believe an evidentiary hearing is necessary given the volume
of deposition and documentary evidence supporting the need for an injunction, Plaintiffs
26 can make their witnesses available for examination during the October 30, 2017 remedies
27 hearing and will be prepared to examine Defendants witnesses.

28
3
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 17

1 Ex. E at 197:08198:01 (Douglas Dep. Tr.).

2 Having adopted Superintendent Huppenthals January 2, 2015 finding of violation,
3 Superintendent Douglas continued to enforce ARS 15-112 by monitoring TUSD to
4 ensure that the CRC program did not violate ARS 15-112 under the threat of
5 withholding 10% of state funds. Superintendent Douglas was unequivocal about the need
6 for this compliance monitoring. On March 3, 2015, she wrote to TUSD and explained
7 that, while she will not withhold funding at this time, she remains deeply concerned
8 that some TUSD teachers are not following the District-approved curricula for culturally
9 relevant classes and has little confidence that TUSD adequately ensures that teachers
10 adhere to the approved curricula. Ex. F at 1 (Douglas Ltr.) (emphasis added).
11 Superintendent Douglas also explained that continued compliance monitoring was
12 necessary given TUSDs well-documented past failures to comply with ARS 15-112.
13 Id. at 2. In her deposition, Superintendent Douglas testified that the compliance
14 monitoring program is ongoing and that it only applied to TUSDs CRC classes:
15 Q. So the only district and the only classes in the State of
Arizona that are monitored by your office, by you, for
16 purposes of 15-112, even to this day, continues to be
17 the culturally relevant classes at TUSD, correct?

18 A. Again, we work collaboratively with Dr. Sanchez for

the improvement of student education.
19
20 Q. Maam, you write letters and you identify concerns,
your staff identifies concerns, and you sit in
21 classrooms while teachers are presenting to their
22 students, and you have your staff write notes assessing
what is going on in the classroom, right?
23
A. I believe we still do.
24
25 Q. Thats monitoring, isnt it?
26 A. To work -- I consider it working collaboratively.
27
28
4
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 5 of 17

Q. Fine. You want to use that euphemism, but I consider

1
that monitoring. And thats the only program in the
2 entire state of all the curriculums that exist in the state
to which that occurs, correct?
3
4 A. With regards to 15-112.

5 Ex. E at 249:13250:08 (Douglas Dep. Tr.).

6 Superintendent Douglas testimony was confirmed by other members of her
7 administration, including Carol Lippert, an associate superintendent who enforced ARS
8 15-112 by visiting classes to ensure no violations were occurring. Lippert testified that
9 she started doing [classroom] visits after Superintendent Douglas took office and
10 described her monitoring process as follows:
11 When I arrive, I will check in at the front office and -- at
whichever school it happens to be at. Then I will go to the
12 classroom and sit -- try to stay the whole classroom period, if
13 possible. . . . Some of them have -- it could be like 50 minutes
and some could be longer, depends on the schedule of the
14 school; and I have a document, an observation document, to
take notes on; and then I check out at the office again.
15
Ex. G at 76:0809, 72:1322 (Lippert Dep. Tr.). Lippert also testified that CRC classes
16
were [the] only classes [she] was asked to monitor, and that while she could not recall
17
the exact number of CRC classrooms she monitored, she visited [a] lot of times. Id. at
18
82:0105, 72:0509. Lippert also explained that when visiting a CRC classroom, she was
19
required to use an observation protocol to monitor compliance under each specific
20
provision of ARS 15-112:
21
We have an observation protocol that we use where we just
22 take notes of the things that we have received or that we saw
23 when we were in there. . . . Its just a box where you can take
notes for each of the different areas and another place to just
24 take more general notes that maybe didnt fit up above.
25
Id. at 77:0820.
26 The Douglas administrations continued enforcement of ARS 15-112 was by no
27
28
5
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 6 of 17

1 means innocuous. Lorenzo Lopez, the director of the CRC program, testified at length
2 about the harm caused by these ongoing enforcement efforts:
3 [T]he monitoring by ADE was specifically to enforce the
statute, which outlines those four provisions. . . . The
4 development of any curriculum has to be filtered through
5 those four vague provisions. The use of resources that may
have been used during MAS are no longer an option or at the
6 very least would cause concern for teachers as theyre
developing their curriculum, as theyre implementing their
7
curriculum, in the form of questions and the types of
8 discussions that are had in the classroom.
9 Ex. H at 87:0314 (Lopez Dep. Tr.). Lopez also explained that the compliance

10 monitoring directly impacted the resources that were used . . . and directly impacted the

11 type of speech used in the classroom with students. Id. at 89:2490:04. Underscoring the

12 need for an injunction to prevent any further enforcement, Lopez explained how the

13 Douglas administrations compliance monitoring discriminated against the Mexican-

14 American viewpoint:

15 The effect that the statute has had in practice has been that of
chilling of any discussion that is progressive, that is critical,
16 that engages students in -- in a critical analysis of their
realities. It prevents that for fear that the statute will be -- that
17
that action will be a violation of the statute.
18 Id. at 105:1925.
19 Accordingly, Defendants contention that Superintendent Douglas and her
20 administration should not be enjoined because they had no role in any of the
21 unconstitutional activity is utterly and dispositively contradicted by the factual
22 record in this case. And Defendants attempt to close the factual record on remedies
23 before it even opens to avoid this damning evidence is completely contrary to the Courts
24 order bifurcating proceedings. Given this factual record and the Courts conclusion that
25 ARS 15-112 is unconstitutional, the appropriate remedy is to declare the statute
26 unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the enforcers of this statute the Douglas
27
28
6
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 7 of 17

1 administration and all successive administrations from taking any steps to further
2 enforce the statute. See 28 U.S.C. 2202 (empowering courts to grant [f]urther
3 necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree); Pls. Remedy Br.
4 at 810 (citing cases where courts declared state laws unconstitutional and enjoined the
5 enforcers of these laws from further enforcement).
6 II. Absent A Permanent Injunction, Superintendent Douglas Will Likely
Continue To Enforce ARS 15-112
7
A. Superintendent Douglas Has A History Of Enforcing Unconstitutional
8 Laws
9 On March 8, 2013, this Court entered a declaratory judgment invalidating ARS
10 15-112(A)(3) as unconstitutionally vague. See Ex. I (Judgment). Defendants never moved
11 to stay the entry of this judgment and the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the Courts
12 ruling. But despite both this Court and the Ninth Circuit striking down ARS 15-
13 112(A)(3) as unconstitutional, Superintendent Douglas and her administration continued
14 to enforce this provision.
15 When monitoring CRC classrooms, members of the Douglas administration used
16 an observation sheet, which had a section dedicated to each of the four provisions of
17 ARS 15-112, including ARS 15-112(A)(3). Lippert testified that she used this
18 observation sheet every time she monitored a CRC class, except on one occasion in
19 December 2015 but that visit was the one and only occasion where she didnt use
20 the observation sheet. Ex. G at 90:1825 (Lippert Dep. Tr.). Lippert also testified that this
21 observation sheet was never modified to remove the section dealing with ARS 15-
22 112(A)(3):
23 Q. You testified also earlier that you use observation
sheets when you observe the classrooms?
24
25 A. Correct.

26 Q. And on these observation sheets, are there still -- is

there still a box for (A)(3)?
27
28
7
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 8 of 17

1
A. Is there a box for (A)(3)? There is four boxes, so -- I
2 dont have it in front of me, so I would need to relook
at it again. But there are four boxes, yes.
3
4 Q. So that would indicate you are still observing for each
section of the statute, (A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), (A)(4)?
5
MS. COOPER: Objection: Form; misstates prior
6
testimony.
7
A. THE WITNESS: It would indicate that we are
8 collecting information about the four areas.
9
Q. BY MS. BARRINGTON: Why would you still be
10 observing for (A)(3)?
11
MS. COOPER: Objection: Form, foundation, misstates
12 prior testimony, assumes facts not in evidence.
13 MS. BARRINGTON: I just asked her and she said
14 there are still four boxes in the observation sheets
today.
15
MS. COOPER: Why dont you show her one of the
16
forms and then that will be much more helpful in terms
17 of getting accurate testimony.

18 A. THE WITNESS: So, again, I use that form to collect

19 information to bring back.

20 Q. BY MS. BARRINGTON: So are you still observing

for violations of (A)(3)?
21
22 A. I would say we are making observations on the
classroom in its entirety. We dont make any decisions
23 until we come back.
24
Q. There is a box in your observation sheet for (A)(3)?
25
MS. COOPER: Objections. Same objections.
26
27
28
8
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 9 of 17

A. THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe so, without having it in

1
front of me, however.
2
Q. BY MS. BARRINGTON: Can you tell me why you
3 would still be observing for violations of (A)(3) if that
4 section of the statute has been found to be
unconstitutional?
5
MS. COOPER: Same objections.
6
7 A. THE WITNESS: No.
8 Id. at 88:0489:23.
9 This admission is troubling. Given that the Court declared ARS 15-112(A)(3)
10 unconstitutional on March 8, 2013 two years before Superintendent Douglas even
11 took office every time Lippert or any other member of the Douglas administration
12 used this observation sheet, they were actively enforcing an unconstitutional law.2
13 Because the record demonstrates that a declaratory judgment alone is inadequate to
14 prevent Superintendent Douglas from enforcing the statute, a permanent injunction is
15 necessary to fully effectuate the Courts August 22, 2017 ruling and ensure that neither
16 the Douglas administration, nor any future administrations, can enforce ARS 15-112.
17 See 28 U.S.C. 2202.
18 B. Superintendent Douglas Believes That Critical Race Pedagogy Promotes
Racism, Segregation, And The Teaching Of Hate
19
A permanent injunction is also necessary because, in addition to her history of
20
21 2
When Lippert was asked whether there are any steps to remove or stop observing for
22 (A)(3) now that the section of the statute has been found unconstitutional, counsel for
Defendants objected and noted that the statute was only found unconstitutional in the
23 summer of 2015 . . . so most of the observations [being discussed] occurred prior to the
Ninth Circuit decision. Ex. G at 89:2490:07 (Lippert Dep. Tr.). But the statute was
24
found unconstitutional by this Court in March 2013, and Defendants never moved to stay
25 the judgment pending appeal. As a result, each and every class that was monitored during
the Douglas administration using Defendants observation sheet ignored this Courts
26 ruling and enforced an unconstitutional law. Furthermore, neither Lippert nor counsel for
27 Defendants articulated any steps to remove or stop observing for ARS 15-112(A)(3).

28
9
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 10 of 17

1 enforcing unconstitutional laws, Superintendent Douglas is ideologically opposed to the

2 Mexican American perspectives taught in the CRC program. Sharing Superintendent
3 Horne and Huppenthals disregard of the pedagogical research confirming the benefits of
4 ethnic studies programs demonstrated through the testimony of Dr. Nolan Cabrera and
5 Dr. Angela Valenzuela during the liability phase of these proceedings Superintendent
6 Douglas relies on racially charged generalizations and anecdotal reading of unnamed
7 newspapers and magazines to inform her views:
8 Q. The next paragraph in your speech is: Racism is hard
to combat, but academic segregation and the teaching
9 of hate through critical race pedagogy must stop now.
10 Do you see that sentence?

11 A. Yes, I do.
12
Q. What is critical race pedagogy?
13
A. My understanding of critical race pedagogy is that it is
14 a theory, for lack of a better term, of the importance of
15 a race or the individuality of a race.

16 Q. What is that based on, your understanding?

17
A. Some -- I would call -- anecdotal reading.
18
Q. Anecdotal reading of what, maam?
19
20 A. I cannot cite a specific document.

21 Q. Well, you -- your speech says, Teaching of hate

through critical race pedagogy must stop now. Did I
22
read that correctly?
23
A. You read the words correctly.
24
25 Q. All right. Where have you seen anything that critical
race pedagogy teaches hate?
26
MS. COOPER: Form, foundation.
27
28
10
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 11 of 17

1
Q. BY MR. MARTINEZ: I need to know each and every
2 fact that supports that statement, that critical race
pedagogy teaches hate.
3
4 A. You are asking me to cite specific documents that I
dont have, that I cannot list by name or title.
5
Q. Well
6
7 A. I have read newspaper articles; Ive read magazine
articles. I dont know that I -- I dont recall reading
8 any books on it. But I dont -- I cant cite you specific
9 documents.

10 Q. Okay. When you say youve read a newspaper article,

what newspaper or newspapers are you making
11
reference to?
12
MS. COOPER: Form, foundation, asked and
13 answered.
14
A. THE WITNESS: I can tell you what newspapers or
15 media outlets I take a look at, but I cannot assure you
which one was tied to what articles.
16
17 Q. BY MR. MARTINEZ: I wasnt asking you to do the
latter. I was asking you the former. When you say you
18 read a newspaper article that may have contained an
19 article specific to critical race pedagogy teaching hate,
which newspaper or newspapers are we talking about?
20
A. I dont know that I can ascribe to a particular
21
newspaper a particular article that Ive read to say, for
22 a fact, that in that newspaper there was an article that
discussed that issue.
23
24 Q. Well, what magazine?

25 A. I cannot reference a magazine. I would not ascribe

something to a particular magazine or newspaper if I
26 were not certain that that was the reference or that was
27 the source of the information.

28
11
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 12 of 17

1
Ex. E at 43:2145:24 (Douglas Dep. Tr.).
2
Superintendent Douglas uninformed views and racial biases affected her policies
3
in office. For example, on October 1, 2015, Superintendent Douglas issued a report
4
entitled AZ Kids Cant Afford To Wait. Ex. J (Douglas Report). In this report,
5
Superintendent Douglas stated that the history of teaching racism and academic
6
segregation and the teaching of hate through Critical Race Pedagogy must stop now. Id.
7
at 5. And in announcing her Culturally Inclusive Education for All Children initiative,
8 Superintendent Douglas cited Culturally relevant courses in the Tucson Unified School
9
District as an example of divisive instruction and explained that people with harmful
10
agendas have been able to add instruction which Superintendent Douglas and others
11
believe fans the flames of racism. Primarily this is Critical Race pedagogy and the
12
teaching of victimization. Id. at 15. One of the purposes of this initiative, therefore, was
13
to [e]liminate critical race pedagogy from all Arizona schools. Id. at 16.
14
Superintendent Douglas comments particularly her comments targeting the
15 supposed teaching of victimization in these classes echo those comments repeatedly
16 made by Superintendent Huppenthal before this Court. See Ex. K at 166:1416 (Day 1
17 Tr.) (To get the message that youre oppressed and that youre a victim, I just dont feel
18 like its a healthy message for students to have that framework about everything in life.);
19 Ex. L at 68:0103 (Day 3 Tr.) (My philosophical concern was I want these students to
20
get ahead in life, I dont want them to feel that theyre a victim of anybody.). And much
21
like Superintendent Huppenthal who testified that Paulo Freires Pedagogy of the
22 Oppressed must teach students to be oppressed because the very title starts out with the
23 assumption that theyre oppressed, id. at 77:2025 Superintendent Douglas had no
24 knowledge whatsoever about the pedagogical underpinnings of ethnic studies classes,
25
testifying that, at most, she may have read part of an unnamed book:
26
27
28
12
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 13 of 17

Q. Are you suggesting that critical race pedagogy teaches

1
that one race is superior to another?
2
A. That is what I have read its belief to be.
3
4 Q. Read where?

5 A. In --
6
MS. COOPER: Form, foundation, asked and
7 answered.
8 A. THE WITNESS: Well --
9
Q. BY MR. MARTINEZ: Read where, maam?
10
A. In articles I have read about it.
11
12 Q. Are we back to magazines and newspapers?
13 A. Places where people get information. But, again, I
14 cannot cite a specific one.

15 Q. Have you ever read, maam, a single book on critical

race pedagogy?
16
17 A. Cover to cover, not -- not to my knowledge.

18 Q. Have you ever read even a part of a book on critical

19 race pedagogy?

20 A. I believe I may have.

21
Q. What book?
22
A. I cannot --
23
24 Q. Or books?

25 A. I cannot cite a title.

26 Q. Can you cite me an author or authors?
27
28
13
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 14 of 17

A. No.
1
2 Ex. E at 47:1948:19 (Douglas Dep. Tr.).
3 These facts clearly prove that a permanent injunction against enforcing ARS 15-

4 112 is necessary. Superintendent Douglas unfounded willingness to equate MAS and

5 CRC classes with teaching racism, hate, and victimization, combined with her stated

6 policy of eliminating all critical race teachings from Arizona schools, creates a dangerous

7 likelihood that she will continue to enforce ARS 15-112. Indeed, based on her beliefs, it

8 is unsurprising that she adopted Superintendent Huppenthals January 2, 2015 finding; it

9 is unsurprising that she extensively monitored and investigated CRC classes; and it is

10 unsurprising and deeply troubling that in the month since this Courts ruling, she

11 has not taken any action to undo her enforcement efforts or set aside any prior findings

12 made under ARS 15-112. See Ex. M (Plaintiffs Email) (requesting copies of any

13 official statement setting aside prior findings). A permanent injunction is the only way to

14 ensure compliance with this Courts ruling.

15 C. Defendants Efforts To Resist An Injunction Only Underscore Its Necessity

16 Rather than acknowledging that when courts declare statutes to be

17 unconstitutional, the typical remedy is to enjoin all further enforcement, Defendants have

18 actively resisted the imposition of any injunctive relief. Indeed, notwithstanding the key

19 role Superintendent Douglas plays in the ongoing enforcement of ARS 15-112,

20 Defendants have embarked on a persistent campaign to insulate her and her

21 administration from this case.

22 In one of Defendants earliest such efforts, Defendants objected to Plaintiffs

23 motion to amend their pleadings to add new plaintiffs upon remand, arguing that any

24 constitutional violation would not be redressible. This Court disagreed, ruling that

25 [t]here is at least a substantial likelihood that enjoining further enforcement of ARS

26 15-112 would end the complained-of discrimination . . . and would leave the District free

27 to once again offer curricula and materials representing the ideological viewpoint

28
14
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 15 of 17

1 currently forbidden under 15-112. Ex. N at 23 (Order) (emphasis added).

2 Defendants continued their efforts to insulate the Douglas administration in their
3 pretrial submission to the Court. There, Defendants objected to any injunctive relief
4 because [i]t would be impossible for Defendants to determine if their conduct violated
5 such an injunction. Ex. C at 32 (JPTO). This objection is utterly baseless. Defendants
6 can easily tell if their conduct violates the injunction: if they are enforcing ARS 15-112,
7 they are violating the injunction; if they are monitoring any classes or programs to ensure
8 compliance with ARS 15-112, they are violating the injunction; and if they fail to set
9 aside the findings made under ARS 15-112, they are violating the injunction.
10 Defendants also argued in their pretrial submission that such an injunction would
11 constitute an unwarranted intrusion by a federal court into an elected State officials
12 administration of State law. Id. Defendants willingness to argue that this Court lacks
13 the power to enjoin further constitutional violations because it would interfere with state
14 law not only ignores the Supremacy Clause and the most basic principles of federalism,
15 but it also casts serious doubt on Defendants intention to comply with Court orders
16 absent an injunction.
17 Far from easing this doubt, Defendants post-trial submissions provide even more
18 cause for concern. Instead of taking any steps to officially void all prior findings made
19 under ARS 15-112 and discontinue their compliance monitoring program, Defendants
20 have instead directed their efforts to insulating Superintendent Douglas from the Courts
21 ruling. In doing so, Defendants have taken the untenable position that Plaintiffs are not
22 permitted to adduce any facts in support of their requested remedies. See Ex. O at 2
23 (Hartman-Tellez Email). Defendants position is completely untethered from the Courts
24 clear bifurcation order. It would not only deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the
25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it would also
26 deprive Plaintiffs their rights under the Seventh Amendment to present their claims to a
27 trier of fact, in this case, the Court.
28
15
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 16 of 17

1 Defendants efforts to shield Superintendent Douglas from the Courts ruling by

2 any means necessary no matter how meritless cast serious doubt on their intention
3 to comply with a declaratory judgment alone. The Court should, therefore, permanently
4 enjoin all Defendants including Superintendent Douglas and each of her successors
5 and members of their administration as well as the Board of Education from taking
6 any action pursuant to ARS 15-112.
7 CONCLUSION
8 For the reasons above, the Court should reject Defendants objection to a
9 permanent injunction and enter the relief requested by Plaintiffs in their proposed
10 judgment.
11
Dated September 25, 2017 /s/ Steven A. Reiss
12
13 Steven A. Reiss
Luna N. Barrington
14 David Fitzmaurice
15 WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP

16 James W. Quinn
JW QUINN ADR
17
18 Richard M. Martinez, Esq.
19 Robert S. Chang, Esq.
20 Ronald A. Peterson Clinic
Seattle University School of Law
21
Counsel for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
 Case 4:10-cv-00623-AWT Document 474 Filed 09/25/17 Page 17 of 17

1 Certificate of Service
2
I hereby certify that on September 25, 2017, I electronically filed the above
3 Remedy Reply Brief via ECF.
4
5 /s/ David Fitzmaurice
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28