Richard M. Martinez Collection

Initially known as Arce v. Douglas, the case was renamed González v. Douglas after additional plaintiffs were added following a successful appeal. González v. Douglas, 269 F. Supp. 3d 948 (2017) was a pivotal legal case that successfully challenged Arizona's ban on the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson public schools. The case was brought by teachers, students, and their parents with Richard M. Martinez serving as lead counsel following the passage of Arizona House Bill 2281. The bill, codified as Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") §§ 15-111. prohibited school districts and charter schools from including any courses or classes that: (1)"Promote the overthrow of the United States government," (2)"Promote resentment toward a race or class of people," (3)"Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," or (4)"Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." (A.R.S. §§ 15-112). The bill's passage led directly to the elimination of the Mexican American Studies program in Tuscon’s public schools.

In 2017, after a 7-year legal battle, U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima ruled that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent and racial animus, violating both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case was a landmark for Ethnic Studies, particularly Mexican American Studies in the U.S., reaffirming the significance of these programs in public education and setting a precedent for the protection of culturally relevant curricula.

2010

March 23, 2010: Arizona House Bill 2281 (HB 2281) is signed into law, banning public schools from offering courses that promote racial resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity, targeting the Mexican American Studies program in the Tucson Unified School District

2010

October 2010: Arce v. Douglas is filed by 10 teachers and the director of the Mexican American Studies program, with lead counsel Richard Martinez. The suit is later amended to include two students and their parents.

2013

March 2013: The Arizona district court grants summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding A.R.S. § 15-112(A)(3) on First Amendment grounds but denies summary judgment on all other claims. The plaintiffs appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court.

2015

July, 2015: The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's summary judgment and remands the case for trial, finding genuine issues of fact about whether A.R.S. § 15-112(A) was enacted or enforced with discriminatory intent.

2017

August, 2017: The court ruled that both the enactment and enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 15–112 were driven by racial animus and political motives rather than legitimate educational concerns.