the morning my name is mario crow sorry for the plaintiff board of education joya township my school tool for health all your honors may please the court the central issue to the certified question that before you is whether an eight claim for equal educational opportunity act under that act independent action that is separate and apart from an action for admission review and whether  falls under the original jurisdiction of the circuit court we would search you that that answer should be in the affirmative and that the plaintiff should be allowed to conduct discovery present evidence develop a factual record and allow the circuit court under its original jurisdiction to fully educate that claim the issue of in iole a claim and a code of the illinois school that he's the supremes court address two main issues that they set out the beginning of their opinion the first issue was whether under section seven point two b of the school code if under that section they were required this fight be restrictions that section of what they could look at and consider if they were required still to consider the iau a claim the second main issue the court was addressed with was if the court would not consider the e e o c claim under section seven to be of the only school code did that all under the circuit court's original jurisdiction to consider that as a separate claim very similar issue but just by way of short some procedural facts that are relevant here this case obviously to be efficient that was file for detachment before the regional board was filed another seven point one of the school code that he's involved seven point t b of the school however in its ruling in the authorities that were dressed in the language of its opinion the supreme court opinion and ruling applies to seven point one as well in terms of considering an e o a claim as a separate and independent claim that falls under the original jurisdiction of the circuit court in that opinion the court considered several other decisions in making that the allegations of the claim were and you were denying english proficiency testing and instruction for english proficiency the reason why it is important that illinois supreme court looked at that case is because the oyster crimper specifically said in that case one of the issues that arose wos where does the relief come from from discriminatory actions under the where does that come from the e o way and its provisions at the gomez court look at it said that echoes from the state and its agencies the illinois supreme court look at that case and said well that's true but it derives from the courts themselves that power that relief to enforce the e o eight derives under the original jurisdiction of the courts so that the beginning of the illinois supreme court's decision points to go madison right off the bat as that is the source of the power for the course to consider that second the court went further than in the two thousand and eight only stream court case and it said that the the issue number two that it was addressing as to whether or not the circuit courts had original jurisdiction to consider this claim in the back east because seven point two b was involve eat problem that dealt with the court as he said if you if because of the limitations of section seven to point b they cannot look at that issue and they goes to the circuit courts initiative review  claim in initiate review claim the circuit court would also be prevented from looking at anything outside of the scope of a measure of use they said how is the e e o way that enforce and the corridor directly said that initiated this is only a problem if administrator view is the exclusive means of challenging the board's decision it goes on to say it's not the exclusive means of challenging the board's decision it not only falls under the original jurisdiction the circuit court but it also in fact is the independent action and may be brought this is important terms of archy's for procedural history because when we filed the claim for administrative review that was brought as a count one as a count to it was a separate and distinct claim for point b that that simply means that it was allowed to be brought before the circuit court in the act nice because there's very specific requirements under seven point two b for detachment because in that situation you have to satisfy a series of factors including equalized value and obtain two thirds of the voters and then more importantly the remaining boundaries are the same under seven point two b and then he says it goes on to say that in that with those factors satisfied it shall be granted the second shall be granted and that eat or can't look at any other issue so the argument is that because that statute was involved that's the only reason why the circuit court at a regional jurisdiction to look at that as a separate claim i would a search you that is not the case based on language illinois supreme court as an extreme narrowing of their opinion the court goes on to point to one of education for rich township versus brown and they did that specifically point out that case where there was some constitutional issues that went along with a detachment decision and the reason they point to this is because these differently see in the rich township case that there is sure in the big picture judge i think a critical difference is this the the org is being presented with evidence about the detachment and execution and they're considering that then the board makes a decision equal playing allows you to say hold on the whole point of the deal statute is that we look at whether the state agencies themselves are acting in this capacity so one is just a presentation to the board and this is the same problem they had in the supreme court case you present the evidence to the board making a decision and then you're only subject to administrative review the whole point he always e e o is that you could look at the board's action and say was the board's decision was the board's action actually violative of the  is brought in the scene he's but i think it is also important as promising these because what we're alleging in that claim if you look at the plain language of deal way the way that the language of the statute is written the critical thing that is prohibited is that being either under see a greater degree of segregation or under d that it increases segregation then it is prohibited by the way so the board could hear the evidence and they could before the court today is whether the e e o c e o wait is a independent action under the circuit court's regional jurisdiction so that we can conduct discovery as needed in that we would have been able to do before the board as a separate action and the language of the ego eight this it's not time restrictive it says that if the assignment or if the transfer if it results in that's the operative language on its face that means that you know when this assign there wouldn't be only to the extent that the usa would also be ruled out at the same time by the scene judge because the bring in the scene we brought in the scene it is so because there are the same time presumably the judge will be ruling on both counts so to the extent he rules that we if they certify questions answered in the negative then we go back to the circuit court and we cannot conduct discovery we cannot reserve insecure not create a factual record essentially prevents us merely because coupled with the school code allowed to present what is in the administrative review record and that was the real problem and i think it is a slippery slope because if we're alleging that the board itself in making its decision and in pursuing and allowing the attachment to happen and the extent that any of these are aggravated by the eleventh amendment the federal statute should be applied separately and that falls under the courts to do that that you  voluntary or not if this happens it's violates the you a judge could say but under that section or that count i cannot allow this to happen is it will be it would be prohibited by the way saying there's some advantage to doing it as well as my point well is essentially not something that was evidence presented to the or it's the board's decision that's the decision that is potentially in violation of the e e o c e e o way the circuit court can look at the decision itself the ordinance purpose in effect of making that decision so whether it's brought a separate case or whether the problem scene is the point is his ego eight prohibits in a state agency educationally to see for making a decision that will cause that so it's not just the administrative review record later i think that's a good point and i think it's one of the real cost to concerns of bringing in a later action because a lot of the evidence let's say there was a hypothetical situation where before the board there was no evidence at all presented of segregated facts there's nothing i think you're still entitle to bring in equal and eat only claim in a separate ace i think it would be a weak case because you're abit enson the things that you're going to be putting before the court in the factual record are going to be developing is going to be what happened there and what decision the board made so it's going to be case of nothing occurred so and i think yes if things did occur then you brought it later i think there would be rescued key issues with that as well conclusion i would just say that the language of the ego itself is a federal statute it directly says that this could be voluntary or involuntary that we are able to conduct discovery we can actually be limited it's actually an obligation of them to look into you a violations so thank you nothing to do with us another word with what the board consider what they're certified question is is it is the e o a action an independent action and the supreme court answered that in two thousand and eight i'm glad that the supreme court was faced with seven to be at that time because it forced them to answer that question of whether it is an independent action piece to all three they directly say problem only exists if it mistreated review is the exclusive means of challenging the board decision it's not the exclusive means of challenging or citizen it is subject to the e o eight and whether it violates that regardless of what evidence the word heard on that and there is a lot of terms thrown around about rachel composition the eagle eight provisions are very specific there's a large body case law on the e o way and it's not just a regional compering composition it's a question of whether it adds a reader degree of segregation or if it increases segregation and it goes to the purpose and intent of the decision that is not merely pulling some foil only from ation off a website that is not merely you know interviewing you know somebody at the board level it asks the board's overall decision in making that and through discovery in those cases the case the case of the fat in our brief just for the show the court that limited to the language of the statute is the critical inquiry is over segregation so we wouldn't just pull numbers off the web say we would look in the present if this is sidemen or this transfer is authorized what does it do suits further everything else can be done document from documentation on that is correct just what i would i would look to to answer that question and look to the language of the illinois supreme court the language doing this for important decision said after they made this terminations they said the circuit court under its original your station making dr proceedings and hear evidence and develop a factual record i do not believe that forecloses underneath out from then hearing testimony from a person if there court consider should that evidence be left out if there is evidence that several of the petitioners their motive or their intent in pursuing and had some you know interactions with that viewpoint of violating the iau way from and the board basically in its transcript proceeding saying while that may be but we're going to go ahead and grant anyway i mean i'm i'm i'm just paraphrasing for you the answer but there's specific i think that's testimonial evidence and it's documentary evidence to it's documentary evidence or by present you when you're on a board now i think it is not only in the numbers that we've talked about today in our all fact but it's also in the testimony of people i think we should be able to know a claim i think that's just one example of several different kinds that could exist but the overall point of the certified question is the big problem here judges is that if you tie the ability to do discovery on an e o a claim to the school code or to the administrative code then you're taking that federal statute you're saying every time that there is an administrative review count in the same cases in a cow or equal protection count every time apennines then you can't or can't consider any fresh new discover they have to just consider what that agency didn't if you're going to do that then how do you can force the always or equal protection statutes when the agency itself me the wrong decision i do do you think your time that's all i think