Fisher v. U.S.

3 Citing cases

  1. González v. Douglas

    269 F. Supp. 3d 948 (D. Ariz. 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Reviewing extensive evidence to support conclusions that enactment and enforcement of law to eliminate Mexican-American Studies program were motivated by anti-Mexican-American animus

    In 1974, Latino and Black students brought a school desegregation class action in federal district court against Tucson Unified School District ("TUSD"). Following trial, the district court ruled that TUSD had acted with segregative intent and failed to rectify the detrimental effects of those actions. SeeMendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 623 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1980) ; Fisher v. United States , 549 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1135 n.5 (D. Ariz. 2008) (describing the district court's findings). The court entered a consent decree requiring TUSD "to remedy existing effects of past discriminatory acts or policies."

  2. Fisher v. Tucson Unified School Dist.

    652 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 37 times
    Finding fault with District's failure to review program effectiveness including review of student achievement data

    The district court responded to the School District's Student Assignment Report and the plaintiffs' objections in an order in which it made its second preliminary finding that the School District had achieved unitary status. SeeFisher v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. No. One, 549 F.Supp.2d 1132 (D.Ariz.2008). Adopting as its own the facts stated by the School District in its Report, the court found that the District had satisfied the second prong of the unitary status inquiry: " [T]he ethnic and race ratios required under the Settlement Agreement desegregation plans were implemented and maintained for 5 years, and eliminated to the extent practicable the vestiges of de jure segregation."

  3. Fisher v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist.

    No. CV-74-00090-TUC-DCB (Lead Case) (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2021)

    " (Order (Doc. 2123) at 4 n.1.) Fisher v. TUSD, 549 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (Ariz. 2008) (granting unitary status), rev'd 652 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The District rewrites history by asserting that "[t]he Court entered the Unitary Status Plan ("USP") as an order, over the District's objections, . . .." (Supp.