This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the Court asked whether the Department’s regulations were essentially the same as prior regulations and had undergone the notice‑and‑comment process.
According to Justice Alito, the Court also questioned whether the statutory language about percentile thresholds is unambiguous, noting it refers to the 95th and 5th percentiles but does not specify whether they apply to local education agencies.
Justice Kennedy asked whether other States would give the same answer as the one just provided.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Zuni Public School District 89)
Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Van Amberg, argued that the State’s only argument is about absurdity.
According to Mr. Van Amberg, petitioner also cited a provision in the Impact Aid Act (section 7113) that allows the Secretary of Education to disregard a State’s manipulation of local education agencies.
Respondent (Department of Education)
According to State Respondent, respondent’s counsel, Mr. Manasevit, highlighted an 18‑year history in which Congress gave the agency broad authority to devise equalization tests.
What happened at oral argument
During oral argument, the justices posed several questions concerning the similarity of regulations, statutory ambiguity, the applicability of per‑pupil expenditure tests, and whether other states would answer similarly.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- c00d33396a85668a1cd2-r1-8abcd1dab9cefc03.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.