ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥

In a brief order, Justice James Beene, writing for the court, said Horne “has not demonstrated good cause for the disqualification of Justice Montgomery.’’

Beene made no mention of Horne’s claim that Montgomery, when he was Maricopa County attorney, made statements that Horne was guilty of campaign finance violations in 2010 before there had been a hearing. A trial judge hearing the issue at the time rejected the way Montgomery wanted to handle the legal claims against Horne.

Beene said Horne had not met his burden of showing that Montgomery, named to the state’s high court in 2019 by Republican and then-Gov. Doug Ducey, could not be fair.

“The motion cites no legal authority that would provide a basis for disqualifying any justice in this case,’’ the order states.

Horne told Capitol Media Services he was surprised by the summary order.

He said he was representing a private party in an unrelated case in front of the justices some years ago, where he raised the same claims about whether Montgomery could be fair given their history.

“And he recused himself,’’ Horne said. “So I’m wondering what changed.’’

One thing is different this time. Montgomery did not personally decide whether or not he should step aside, but left the decision to the others on the seven-member court.

Horne brushed aside a question of whether he may have undermined his case by filing a public document that essentially questioned whether Montgomery could be fair, especially now that the justice will be helping to rule on his claim. But he said he wasn’t sorry he did it.

There was no immediate response from Montgomery.

The issue before the Supreme Court revolves around Horne’s lawsuit, citing a 2000 voter-approved ballot measure which says “all children in ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English, and all children should be placed in English language classrooms.’’

Horne says that means students who are not proficient in the language when they come to school — presumably from ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ where another language is taught — are placed in English immersion courses for four hours a day.

That concept, however, drew concern from some parents and educators who said it resulted in those students falling behind in academic subjects, and raised the question of whether they were being segregated from others their own age.

In 2019, lawmakers voted to allow the state Board of Education to adopt and approve alternate “research-based’’ models that involve two hours a day of English instruction, giving schools more flexibility in how to schedule that time. The change also allows classes mixed with students whose native language is not English with those from ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ where that is not the case.

The board subsequently said that can include a “dual-language model’’ in which students can learn English but also keep up with their peers on other subjects.

Horne contends this doesn’t work as well.

He filed suit in 2023 against districts that have adopted that alternative, arguing that neither the Legislature nor the Board of Education has the constitutional right to override something approved by voters.

So far, though, he has not had a chance to make that argument. Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals ruled that only the Board of Education — and not Horne as elected superintendent of public instruction — can sue districts over whether they are complying with the law.

That sent the case to the Supreme Court.

What the high court decides goes beyond whether the justices will let Horne sue the school districts.

Horne, a Republican, also filed suit against Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Katie Mayes. He says Hobbs encouraged schools to violate the 2000 initiative, and that Mayes issued a legal opinion that empowered school districts to use dual language programs.

Those claims, too, were dismissed by lower courts.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to hear his appeal.