ARGUMENT

The District Court had the power to provide all Havasupai Tribe members ever named as plaintiffs in this lawsuit the equitable remedy of compensatory education. The District Court’s failure to recognize this authority led it to erroneously dismiss certain named plaintiffs and would leave unremedied the violations of federal law experienced by those named plaintiffs currently enrolled as students in HES.

The Indian Education Act (“IEA”), which governs BIE-funded schools, requires the BIE to provide “the highest quality” education for the Havasupai youth attending the BIE-funded and operated HES. 25 U.S.C. § 2000. A series of corresponding regulations require the BIE to provide a comprehensive curriculum to these students that includes core academic classes, integration of the unique cultural and learning styles of the Havasupai students, and other education designed to promote a successful future. 25 C.F.R. § 36. But the BIE’s own admission, as well as the facts gathered during discovery, show that the BIE has failed to fulfill its legal obligations to the Havasupai. Accordingly, the Court is empowered under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 706.

The District Court had the power under the APA to award equitable remedies such as compensatory education to remedy violations of these legal duties. Compensatory education is a forward-looking injunctive remedy designed to provide services and resources to students previously deprived of adequate—and necessary—education. See R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that seeks to make up for educational services the child should have received in the first place.”) (quotation omitted); Reid ex rel. Reid v. D.C., 401 F.3d 516, 522 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Under the theory of ‘compensatory education,’ courts and hearing officers may award ‘educational services ... to be provided prospectively to compensate for a past deficient program.’”). For decades, federal courts have deployed this remedy to ensure students facing barriers to their education— whether due to disability, language, or vestiges of the formerly segregated public school system—receive an adequate education. Given the discrimination the Havasupai have endured, including in the education of their children, compensatory education is appropriate and necessary here, and falls squarely within the Court’s equitable authority.

Argument

The District Court possessed the authority to grant all Havasupai Tribe members, previously identified as plaintiffs in this legal action, the equitable relief of compensatory education. The District Court's oversight in acknowledging this power resulted in the mistaken dismissal of certain named plaintiffs, which would leave unaddressed the federal law violations experienced by those currently enrolled students at HES.

The Indian Education Act (IEA), which governs schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), mandates that the BIE provide "the highest quality" education for Havasupai youth attending HES, a BIE-funded and operated institution. Corresponding regulations require the BIE to offer a comprehensive curriculum that includes core academic subjects, integrates the distinct cultural and learning styles of Havasupai students, and provides other education designed to foster future success. However, the BIE's own admissions and evidence gathered during discovery demonstrate its failure to meet these legal obligations. Consequently, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) empowers the Court to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld."

The District Court, under the APA, had the power to award equitable remedies such as compensatory education to address violations of these legal duties. Compensatory education is a forward-looking injunctive remedy intended to provide services and resources to students who have previously been deprived of adequate and necessary education. Federal courts have consistently used this remedy for decades to ensure that students facing educational obstacles—whether due to disability, language barriers, or legacies of past segregated public school systems—receive a suitable education. Given the discrimination endured by the Havasupai, including in the education of their children, compensatory education is both appropriate and necessary in this context and falls directly within the Court’s equitable jurisdiction.

Summary

The District Court had the authority to offer compensatory education as a fair solution to all Havasupai Tribe members who were plaintiffs in this lawsuit. If the District Court did not recognize this authority, it incorrectly dismissed some plaintiffs. This would leave unresolved the federal law violations experienced by those plaintiffs currently enrolled as students in Havasupai Elementary School (HES).

The Indian Education Act (IEA) oversees schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). It requires the BIE to provide the "highest quality" education for Havasupai youth attending HES, which is funded and run by the BIE. Related rules also require the BIE to offer a full curriculum to these students. This curriculum should include main academic subjects, incorporate the unique culture and learning styles of Havasupai students, and provide other education to help students succeed in the future. However, the BIE has admitted, and evidence gathered during discovery shows, that it has not met its legal duties to the Havasupai. Therefore, the Court has the power under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld."

The District Court had the power under the APA to grant fair remedies, such as compensatory education, to fix these breaches of legal duties. Compensatory education is a forward-looking legal order designed to provide services and resources to students who previously did not receive enough necessary education. For a long time, federal courts have used this remedy to ensure that students facing educational challenges, whether from disability, language, or the effects of past school segregation, receive an adequate education. Considering the discrimination the Havasupai have faced, including in their children's education, compensatory education is suitable and needed in this situation. It is also well within the Court's fair authority.

Legal Argument

The District Court had the authority to offer compensatory education to all Havasupai Tribe members named as plaintiffs in this case. The court's failure to recognize this power led to the incorrect dismissal of some plaintiffs. This would leave unaddressed the federal law violations experienced by those plaintiffs currently enrolled as students at Havasupai Elementary School (HES).

The Indian Education Act (IEA) governs schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). It requires the BIE to provide the "highest quality" education for Havasupai youth attending HES, which the BIE funds and operates. Related rules require the BIE to offer a full curriculum to these students. This curriculum must include core academic classes, incorporate the unique culture and learning styles of Havasupai students, and provide other education to help them succeed in the future. However, the BIE itself has admitted, and facts gathered during the case show, that it has not met its legal duties to the Havasupai. Therefore, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) empowers the Court to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld."

Under the APA, the District Court had the power to award fair remedies like compensatory education to address these violations of legal duties. Compensatory education is a forward-looking remedy meant to provide services and resources to students who previously did not receive proper and necessary education. Federal courts have used this remedy for decades to ensure students facing educational challenges—due to disability, language, or past segregation—receive an adequate education. Considering the discrimination the Havasupai have faced, including in their children's education, compensatory education is suitable and necessary in this situation and falls within the Court's fair authority.

The Court's Power

The District Court had the right to give special schooling to all members of the Havasupai Tribe who were part of this case. This special schooling is called "compensatory education." The court did not see that it had this power. Because of this, some people in the case were wrongly sent away. This means that problems with federal law for students at HES would not be fixed.

The Indian Education Act (IEA) controls schools funded by the BIE. This law says that the BIE must give the best education possible to young Havasupai people at HES. Rules that go with this law say that the BIE must give a full set of lessons to these students. This includes main school subjects and learning about the Havasupai culture. It also includes other lessons to help students have a good future. But the BIE itself has said, and facts show, that it has not done what the law requires. So, the court has the power under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to make the agency do what it should.

The District Court had the power under the APA to give special help like compensatory education. This help fixes problems when legal duties are not met. Compensatory education gives services and help to students who did not get enough schooling before. Courts have used this help for many years. It makes sure students get a good education, especially if they have learning difficulties, speak another language, or were part of an unfair school system in the past. The Havasupai people have faced unfair treatment, including in their children's schooling. So, compensatory education is right and needed here. It is fully within the court's power to provide this type of help.