Respondents here were plaintiffs in the trial court. They are Chinese School Associations, a Chinese school, all giving instruction in Chinese, and a teacher of Chinese in Chinese language schools. After December 7, 1941, these schools closed and have not reopened. Prior to that date they had more than 2,000 pupils, several hundred of whom were in the first and second grade, and numerous teachers. Under J.C. 266 they sought an injunction against officers of the Territory of Hawaii charged by law with the administration of an Act of the Territory 'Regulating the Teaching of Foreign Languages to Children,'2 from enforcing it in any particular against [336 U.S. 368 , 372]   the teaching of foreign languages to the respondents' pupils. 

 The Act was grounded on a legislative finding 'that the study and persistent use of foreign languages by children of average intelligence in their earl and formative years definitely detract from their ability properly to understand and assimilate their normal studies in the English language.' Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, 1871. 'School' was defined as any teaching regularly of two or more persons in a group. 3 Requirements for pupils and teachers in foreign language schools were set out. 4 Visitation of the foreign language schools by appropriate officials for enforcement purposes was authorized. 1875. The only sanction for enforcement is by injunction. 5   [336 U.S. 368 , 373]   This lack of coercion by fine or imprisonment and the limitation of enforcement to injunction are important factors in our conclusion upon No. 474. 

 The complaint alleged that in violation of the Fifth Amendment the Act deprived plaintiff schools of the right to manage their property by contracting with instructors and parents for the teaching of Chinese, and the plaintiff teacher of Chinese of his right to follow his occupation. 6 See Farrington v. T. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 299 , 409. The judgment of the special district court granted a sweeping permanent injunction against enforcement of the Hawaiian Act. As our conclusions are based solely upon procedural issues, any further discussion of the facts or of the law applicable to the merits is not appropriate. [336 U.S. 368 , 374]   The complaint asked for and obtained a three-judge court under the provisions of the Judicial Code 266.7 The minute entries of proceedings and trial and the opinion re applicability of 266, Judicial Code, 74 F. Supp. at [336 U.S. 368 , 375]   page 858, show suggestions that a special district court under Judicial Code 266 cannot be called for Hawaii. The statement of jurisdiction laid bare the problem with commendable frankness. It lies at the threshold of any consideration of this appeal. 8  

naturalization as a US citizen. Although literacy in any language had been acceptable previously, in 1950 the Federal Code established literacy in English as a condition of naturalization. The role of English literacy as a gatekeeper

in immigration and naturalization has expanded over time, and

English literacy is now valued over first language literacy when compared to earlier periods of US history, p. 18

sought to expand educational access and equality

of bilingual education, and nor did it specify which program model schools should adopt for ELLs, it did acknowledge bilingual education as a viable approach for meeting the needs of poor, language minority students

made to federal education legislation for ELLs from the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to the 2001 reauthorization. In many ways, the 1994 amendments to the law were favorable towards bilingual education. At the same time, however, they

equally reflected a movement away from the focus on educational access and equality found in legislation such as the Civil Rights Act (1964), and towards a new emphasis on educational standards, outcomes and excellence

instead (Fowler, 2000; Kaestle, 2001). The testing movement has thus reemerged in the United States in a new form