California Multilingual Education Act of 2016 (CMEA 2016) also known as Proposition 58 came to replace Proposition 227 that required all teachers in California to attend to English-learning student’s needs in order to provide the latter with a high-quality education only in the English language and no other. The new Proposition allows teachers to run bilingual classes for English learners if the community and schoolteacher board claim it necessary. The prevalence of the problem is high due to a large amount of those to whom English is not a native language. According to the California Department of Education (2017), there are currently 1.3 million of English learners in the state and 83% of them are Spanish natives. Given the high numerical strength of the target population and the controversy about the Proposition 227 represented by legal cases centered on the policy, there is a necessity for studying the Proposition 58, which was issued to fill the gaps created by its predecessor. Equity Proposition 58 seems to have restored equity that was undone by Proposition 227. Presently, it enables communities to choose their preferred model of learning English instead of making every schoolchild study in all-English classes. There is a certain controversy about this fact. Proposition 227, in fact, allowed certain individuals to apply for dual language immersion provided they signed a waiver. It seemingly allowed everyone to have same rights on either of the programs and chose the education they wanted for their children. However, practically, such rights were rarely exercised and the schools where children were presented with an opportunity to learn English in their native language were scarce. Above that, most of the bilingual education programs were closed. In addition, there were legal cases where a group of parents and students advocated for the fact that the Proposition 227 violated Equal Educational Opportunity Act. The latter guaranteed each and every student equal learning possibilities, which a requirement to undergo a one-year English-only training class apparently disregarded. The case was also lost due to the insufficiency of the arguments. Similar cases were initiated claiming the violation of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, but the claim was also rejected by Court due to no evidence of discriminative intent (Taylor & Udang, 2016). CMEA 2016 has simplified the rules for parents or communities in need of bilingual education for their children. Therefore, it has restored the factual equity of people instead of theoretical one. Another issue of equity concerns teachers who had troubles with the previously adopted proposition. The question revolved around teachers being not able to differentiate between actions that are qualified as a violation of the proposition that guaranteed the provision of proper English instruction and those that did not (Taylor & Udang, 2016). In district court case California Teachers Association v. Davis the teachers argued that the Proposition has an insufficient capacity to strictly define the cases when the teacher is liable for improper English instruction. It was a parent’s decision to sue the teacher for behaviors that to their knowledge or assumption is not qualified