In 1955, the Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. In Green v. County School Board, the Supreme Court held that local school authorities have an affirmative duty to take all necessary steps to transition to a unitary school system. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts have the authority to enforce desegregation decrees and ensure that school systems eliminate the vestiges of state-imposed segregation, although this supervision is intended to be temporary. Desegregation decrees must be lifted once a school district has complied in good faith and eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable. The Supreme Court further held in Freeman v. Pitts, that federal oversight can be incrementally withdrawn as districts achieve unitary status in specific areas of their operations.
The Tucson Unified School District No. 1 (TUSD) historically operated a dual school system that separated Black and non-Black students. In 1974, African American and Latino students, represented by the Fisher and Mendoza plaintiffs, filed class-action lawsuits against the district, alleging racial discrimination. These lawsuits resulted in a 1978 settlement agreement and desegregation decree, which placed TUSD under federal district court supervision. The decree required the district to implement policies and programs aimed at eliminating segregation and improving educational opportunities for minority students. Over the following decades, the federal district court directed TUSD to take corrective actions, including modifying student assignments, hiring practices, transportation policies, discipline procedures, and curriculum standards to comply with its desegregation obligations.
In 2005, TUSD petitioned to unity status and an end of federal oversight. The federal district court made preliminary findings that TUSD had achieved unitary status, approved a Post-Unitary Status Plan, and relinquished federal supervision. In 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court’s own findings contradicted its conclusion. The district court had determined that TUSD failed to track and analyze data necessary to assess whether desegregation efforts were effective, making it impossible to confirm that past discrimination had been eliminated. It had also identified ongoing deficiencies in student assignment, transportation, faculty hiring, and discipline, showing that TUSD had not yet fully complied with desegregation mandates. The Ninth Circuit ordered continued judicial supervision until TUSD could demonstrate sustained compliance
On remand, the federal district court appointed a special master to develop a Unitary Status Plan (USP). The USP outlined detailed requirements across several key areas, including student assignments, transportation, staffing, discipline policies, educational quality, family and community engagement, extracurricular activities, and accountability and transparency. The USP required TUSD to ensure students had equitable access to schools and programs, address disparities in transportation for magnet schools, increase diversity among teachers and administrators, reduce racial disparities in student discipline, expand advanced learning opportunities for African American and Latino students, and implement data-driven reporting to track compliance.
Between 2018 and 2022, the district court issued multiple rulings, gradually granting unitary status in various areas as TUSD demonstrated compliance. In July 2022, the district court found that TUSD had eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination in student assignments, transportation services, staff hiring practices, and discipline policies. The district court determined that any remaining racial disparities were not directly linked to past segregation but instead resulted from external factors, such as Arizona’s open enrollment policies and demographic changes. The district court noted that student disciplinary disparities affecting African American students had been reduced and that TUSD had implemented policies to address discipline in a race-neutral manner. Regarding academic achievement, the district court stated that achievement gaps are not automatically presumed to be vestiges of segregation and that plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that linked these disparities to past discrimination. The district court thus found that TUSD had attained unitary status, and it relinquished federal supervision over the District, dissolved the 1978 settlement agreement, and entered judgment for TUSD.
The Mendoza plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They argued that TUSD had not yet achieved unitary status because racial disparities remained, particularly in student discipline and academic achievement. They contended that TUSD had failed to fully implement certain USP provisions and had not shown a long-term commitment to desegregation. The United States government, as an intervenor, supported the plaintiffs’ claims and urged continued judicial oversight. TUSD opposed continued supervision, asserting that it had complied in good faith with the USP and that remaining disparities were due to external socioeconomic and policy factors rather than past segregation.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Supreme Court’s two-part test for unitary status. First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether TUSD had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree. Second, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated whether the vestiges of past discrimination had been eliminated to the extent practicable.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that TUSD met both prongs. It ruled that TUSD had acted in good faith in implementing the USP, modifying policies, and demonstrating commitment to non-discriminatory practices. The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that perfect compliance was required, stating that the law only requires the practicable elimination of segregation’s effects. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s findings that remaining disparities in academic achievement and discipline were not caused by past segregation but were instead influenced by broader external factors such as open enrollment laws, family socioeconomic status, and demographic shifts.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that judicial oversight is meant to be temporary and that once a district demonstrates compliance with its constitutional obligations, federal intervention must end. The Ninth Circuit concluded that TUSD had met the necessary legal threshold for unitary status in all required areas and that continued federal district court supervision was no longer warranted.
Mendoza v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2025) 125 F.4th 1262.