Full opinion text
McHUGH, Circuit Judge. This civil rights class action lawsuit was filed thirty years ago to challenge various aspects of the institutionalization of developmentally disabled individuals at two state-supported facilities in New Mexico. After a lengthy trial in 1990, the district court ruled that Defendants—the two institutions and the individuals charged with their operation—were violating class members’ federal constitutional and statutory rights. The district court ordered the parties to develop a plan to cure the violations, and the plan was implemented over the ensuing years through several consent decrees and other court-approved agreements (collectively, consent decrees). Although the two institutions closed in the 1990s, the district court has continued to monitor whether Defendants are in compliance with the obligations set forth in those consent decrees (decree obligations). And in the twenty-five years since the court’s initial ruling, the parties have agreed to, and the court has approved, numerous additional decree obligations of varying specificity with which Defendants must comply before the court will discontinue its oversight. As of the district court’s most recent order, Defendants had yet to fulfill over 300 decree obligations. In August 2015, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to vacate all consent decrees and to terminate the court’s oversight, arguing that changed factual circumstances warrant the requested relief. The district court denied the motion in June 2016. Defendants appealed. We vacate the 2016 Order and remand for the district court to decide whether Defendants are currently violating class members’ federal constitutional or statutory rights and to reassess the equity of continuing federal oversight with the benefit of that determination. I. BACKGROUND To provide context for this dispute, we begin with an overview of the procedural history of this multi-decade litigation. We then examine the district court’s ruling on Defendants’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion under the governing legal standard. A. Litigation History In July 1987, (wenty-one developmentally disabled individuals brought this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. In their complaint, Plaintiffs challenged the conditions of institutionalization at Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School (Fort Stanton) and Los Lunas Hospital and Training School (Los Lunas), both of which were state-supported institutions for the developmentally disabled in New Mexico. Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch. (Jackson II), 964 F.2d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs sought to correct the federal constitutional and statutory deficiencies of the conditions at Fort Stanton and Los Lunas. Id. They also requested relief permitting developmentally disabled persons residing at the institutions to live in integrated family-like settings within the community. Id. In June 1988, the district court allowed more than 125 parents and guardians of residents at Fort Stanton and Los Lunas to intervene. Id. Like Plaintiffs, Interve-nors sought to bring the conditions at the two institutions into compliance with federal constitutional and statutory law. Id. But Intervenors opposed Plaintiffs’ efforts to require mandatory transfer of the institutions’ residents to community-based facilities. Id. In June 1989, the'district court certified a class of “all persons who at that time resided at [Fort Stanton] or [Los Lunas], all persons who would become residents of the institutions during the pendency of the action, and all persons who had been transferred from these two institutions to other facilities funded by [Defendants.” Id. 1. The 1990 Order After a prolonged trial, the district court issued, on December 28,1990, an extensive Memorandum Opinion and Order (1990 Order). Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch. (Jackson I), 757 F.Supp. 1243 (D.N.M. 1990), rev’d in part, 964 F.2d 980 (10th Cir. 1992). In the 1990 Order, the. court “made detailed findings of fact, regarding almost every aspect of the conditions” at the two'institutions, Jackson II, 964 F.2d at 986, and determined that the conditions were statutorily and constitutionally deficient in eighteen areas, Jackson I, 757 F.Supp. at 1315-16. The court concluded that Defendants were discriminating against class members in violation of § 504 .of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by failing to provide adequate accommodations for severely handicapped residents capable of residing in a community setting, while simultaneously serving less .severely handicapped individuals in the community. See id. at 1297-99; see also 29 U.S.C. § 794. And the court ruled that Defendants were violating class members’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). See Jackson I, 757 F.Supp. at 1305-13. Specifically, the court ruled that Defendants were violating due process by failing to provide residents of the two institutions with minimally adequate medical care; by failing “to provide reasonable conditions of safety for the residents”; by physically restraining residents as a result of understaffing; by failing to provide “minimally adequate training” to the residents; and by failing to implement recommendations by interdisciplinary treatment teams (Teams)—consisting of qualified professionals—that certain of these residents should be placed in community settings. Id. at 1306-07, 1312. The district court ordered the parties to work together in good faith “to formulate by agreement a plan to correct” the eighteen areas of deficiencies at the two institutions. Id. at 1315. The court required the parties to formulate a “detailed .written policy to be adopted by and followed at each institution,” to designate persons responsible at each institution for implementing the correction plans, to describe the “strategies to be adopted by each institution” in order to ensure successful implementation of the correction plans, and to develop a “detailed timetable establishing deadlines by which specific components of the correction plan for each deficiency will be achieved.” Id. at 1316. The court also set September 10,1991, as the deadline for “complete correction of all deficiencies.” Id. And the court required the parties to describe the “[m]eans of assuring continued compliance with appropriate standards after correction of the deficiencies has been achieved.” Id. The court further ordered Defendants to prepare, by March 1,1991, “a written plan of transfer to an appropriate community setting for each resident whose [Team] has recommended placement in a community setting.” Id. at 1317. The court urged Plaintiffs to confer in good faith with Defendants to resolve any concerns Plaintiffs may have with the proposed plans and to amend the plans accordingly. Id. at 1316-17. The court also afforded Plaintiffs the opportunity to “file with the court and serve on [D]efendants a statement of any remaining objections they may have to, and their proposals for amending, any particular plan.” Id. Over the next several years, the district court entered various remedial orders and continued to oversee enforcement of those orders. See Jackson v. Los Lunas Ctr. (Jackson III), No. CIV 87-839-JAP/KBM, 2016 WL 9777237, at *2 (D.N.M. June 14, 2016). 2. The 1994 Stipulation Concerning Fort Stanton In 1994, New Mexico elected to close Fort Stanton by 1995 and to transfer all of the residents at the institution to community-based services. In April 1994, the parties filed a joint motion under Rule 60(b) and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), to modify portions óf the district court’s 1990 Order, and to terminate the 1990 Order’s requirements as to Fort Stanton upon closure of that facility. The district court found the parties’ joint motion “well-taken” and determined that “the proposed modification is consistent with the rights of the classmembers.” JA Vol. 3 at 582. As a result, ’ the court relieved Defendants from making further improvements to Fort Stanton. In doing so, the court stated, “[i]n the event that all classmembers have been transferred from Fort Stanton to appropriate settings by July 31, 1995, this Order and all portions of the [1990 Order] concerning corrections of' deficiencies ... at Fort Stanton will hereby be' terminated’.” Id. at 584. 3. The 1997 Joint Stipulation on Disengagement (JSD) and Plan of Action In October 1997, the parties presented the court with the JSD, a Plan of Action, and a joint motion requesting the court’s approval of the JSD. According to the parties’ stipulation, the JSD “does not seek a remedy for past violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.” JA Vol. 7 at 1403. It is instead designed to prevent future harm by ensuring that “Plaintiffs’ rights are not violated in the community settings.” Id. at 1394. To that end, the JSD “defines the further actions and requirements” that Defendants had to complete, “and the services, supports, and benefits” that Defendants had to provide to class members, in order for Defendants to comply with their obligations under the court’s existing orders. JA Vol. 4 at 622. The JSD acknowledges Defendants’ “substantial efforts to develop a non-discriminatory service system for persons with developmental disabilities and to provide appropriate community living arrangements and supports to classmem-bers.” Id. at 620, 112 S.Ct. 748. And it states Defendants had made “efforts to reasonably accommodate the residents of Fort Stanton and Los Lunas in community settings.” Id. at 621. As a result of those efforts, Fort Stanton closed in March 1995 when all its residents had transitioned to community settings, and Los Lunas closed in July 1997 when its last resident transitioned to the community. The JSD also includes a process for judicial disengagement of Defendants’ decree obligations. And it identifies the “Continued . Improvement of Community Services” as an area subject to disengagement. The Continuous Improvement obligations address “a quality improvement approach that requires Defendants to achieve .a certain score on an annual audit.” Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *2 internal quotation marks omitted). In the order denying Defendants’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion that is the subject of this appeal, the district court recognized that Defendants have achieved disengagement from fifty-six of the seventy Continuous Improvement obligations. Id. The parties identified additional obligations in the Plan of Action, which Defendant Department of Health developed “to [ejnhance the Community Service System” for persons with developmental disabilities. JA Vol. 4 at 629. The, Plan of Action contains “a narrative, desired outcomes, and specific activities for thirteen components of the community service system.” Id. Those thirteen components are contained in the Plan of Action’s thirteen attached appendices. Two more appendices were later added by consent of the parties. After holding a fairness hearing, the district court issued, in December 1997, an order approving the JSD and the Plan of Action. The court noted the JSD “does not call for immediate dismissal of this lawsuit,” but instead “contemplates continued judicial oversight that could extend well into the next [millennium].” Id. at 801. The court further observed that the JSD “states the parties’ intention to fulfill most of the activities described in the Plan of Action by December 31, 1998, but makes an exception for certain requirements that may not be met until December 31, 2000.” Id. 4. The 2005 Stipulation to Resolve Motion for Noncompliance (Appendix A) In May 2004, Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause and for further remedial relief to require Defendants to comply ■with the court’s December 1997 order approving the JSD and the Plan of Action. In June 2004, Plaintiffs moved for an Order to Reengage Effective Case Management, Desired Outcome A, Under the Plan of Action. In May 2005, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation on Agreed Actions to Comply with Joint Stipulation of Disengagement and Plan of Action and to Resolve Pending Motions to Show Cause and to Re-engage (2005 Stipulation). Attached to the 2005 Stipulation is “Appendix A[:] Agreed Actions to Address Contempt Motions” (Appendix A). JA Vol. 10 at 1903. The 2005 Stipulation states that it “is intended to obligate Defendants to take certain actions outside the Plan of Action as more specifically outlined in Appendix A.” Id. at 1898. “[T]he actions identified in Appendix A are intended to facilitate compliance with the JSD, to promote completion of ... Audit Recommendations, to further address Case Management even though Plan of Action Desired Outcomes related to Case Management have been previously disengaged by an order of the Court and to address certain aspects of Vocational Rehabilitation.” Id. at 1898-99. The 2005 Stipulation clarifies that it is not intended to change or modify the terms of the JSD, which remain in effect. And it fimther states that Defendants “agree to implement all of the actions identified and listed in Appendix A,” and that the parties agree some of the Appendix A actions supplanted or modified activities listed in the Plan of Action. Id. at 1899. Appendix A imposes 107 specific obligations on Defendants. Some of the obligations are identified as “complete,” while many obligations were scheduled to be completed by May 2006 or in 2007. Although those deadlines were not met, Defendants represent that one third of the activities in Appendix A have been disengaged. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *4. The district court issued an order adopting thé parties’ stipulation the same day the parties submitted it. 5. The 2012 Order In mid-July 2010, Plaintiffs filed another Motion for Further Remedial Relief to Remedy Noncompliance. After full briefing, the district court denied the motion without prejudice so Plaintiffs could refile after an evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 2011. On April 26, 2011—the day before the pretrial conference for the evidentiary hearing—Defendants filed a Rule 60(b)(5) motion to terminate all remaining orders and to conclude the court’s oversight. Defendants maintained that they have made more than a reasonable effort to comply with the court’s orders, that they have substantially complied, with, all existing orders, and that changed factual conditions make continuing compliance substantially more onerous. The court held the motion in abeyance and suspended briefing on it until the completion of the evidentiary hearing, which occurred from June 13 to June 17, 2011. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *4. The-court later terminated the pending Rule 60(b)(5) motion without deciding its merits. Id. at *4 n.12. In November 2011, after the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Further Remedial Relief to Remedy Noncomplianee. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants had failed to comply with the JSD, the Plan of Action, Appendix A, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA (collectively, decrees). Plaintiffs also asked the court to appoint a Jackson Compliance Administrator (Compliance Administrator) to oversee and ensure Defendants’ compliance. In October 2012, the district court issued a 206-page, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (2012 Order). The court praised Defendants’ “innovations and progress,” but determined that Defendants were still in substantial noncompliance with the decree obligations. JA Vol. 25 at 5303. Indeed, the court identified instances of noncompliance in the areas of health, safety, and supported employment. Based on the evidence before it, howevr er, the court stated it “is unable to conclude that Defendants have violated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.” The court explained: To start with, the Court could not conclude that Defendants have discriminated against severely disabled class members with respect to the provision of health care services. In fact, the Court commends Defendants for accommodating those severely disabled class members who live in rural New México by providing them' meaningful access to health care services ... and for developing more and better health care services directed to severely disabled persons. There is, however, a question as to whether Defendants violated the Rehar bilitation Act and ADA by intentionally denying severely disabled class members supported employment services equivalent to' those received by less severely disabled persons. Unfortunately, that question of disparate treatment cannot be analyzed at this time, but must be further briefed. .On the other hand, the Court was unable to find a violation ^ of the Rehabilitation. Act and ADA when severely disabled class members choose to participate in segregated, congregate day services while less severely .disabled persons more often chose to engage in supported employment. ■ . ' Id. at 5304-05. The court also noted that Defendants “are close to substantially complying with [their] obligations,” and suggested that “the parties reconsider the descriptions of the more broadly stated obligations and restate them in language that makes the obligations achievable.” Id. at 5303-04. After all, “many of the obligations are described in language that is more aspirational in nature than operational.” Id. at 5304. Finally, the court granted Plaintiffs’ request to appoint a Compliance Administrator, who could “prod- Defendants into final substantial compliance.” Id. at 5305. 6. The 2015 Revised Table IY After the district court issued its 2012 Order, the parties were to develop a consolidated remedial plan in the áreas of health, safety, and supported employment to address the identified violations. See Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *6. The parties, counsel, the Compliance Administrator, and the court then worked together for over two years before finalizing a consolidated plan. Id. In June 2015, the parties jointly filed the 2015 Revised Table IV—which is a final list of objectives in the areas of health, safety, and supported employment—along with evaluative components (or disengagement criteria) and projected completion dates for each objective. In November 2015, the parties jointly filed a Stipulated Agreement on Disengagement Process for Revised Table IV. Under the agreed-upon disengagement process, Defendants would submit a request for disengagement of a specific decree objective to the Compliance Administrator, who would then make a written “determination” on whether the disengagement criteria had been met. If the Compliance Administrator did not agree that the criteria had been met, then Defendants could withdraw their request for a determination or pursue a disengagement motion with the court. The court noted that, as of May 2016, the Compliance Administrator had issued approximately three determinations on Defendants’ requests, with roughly 197 decree obligations remaining for which the Compliance Administrator had not issued preliminary determinations. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *7 n.20. The court also stated Revised Table IV did not replace or modify existing decree obligations that were not the subject of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Noncompliance Motion and the court’s 2012 Order. Id. at *8. Thus, Defendants must demonstrate substantial compliance with the earlier outstanding decree obligations, in addition to those listed in Revised Table IV. Id. The court estimated that, between the JSD, the Plan of Action, Appendix A, and Revised Table IV, Defendants must still show substantial compliance with approximately 307 decree obligations. Id. at *9. B. District Court’s Denial of Defendants’ Rule 60(b)(5) Motion In August 2015, Defendants filed their current motion under Rule 60(b)(5), arguing that factual circumstances have changed to the extent that the ■ district court should vacate all remaining orders and conclude its oversight entirely. Defendants identified four changed factual circumstances they claim warrant vacatur of all pertinent decrees and termination of the case. First,. Defendants argued that their decree obligations have increased in number and complexity to the point they will never be able to satisfy the “labyrinth of obligations”- that are ever-changing, ever-increasing, and not subject to objective measurement. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *11. Second, Defendants argued that some of their obligations are now outdated: 1) the JSD provisions about community practice improvements at [Los Lunas], which are. no longer relevant as that institution closed in 1997; 2) the JSD formulate for disengagement of the Continuous Improvement outcomes, which is “convoluted,” “confusing,”-and “unworkable”; 3) the JSD Continuous Improvement obligations that “are no longer programmatically sound and are no longer the desire” of [class members],” and that are not relevant to the present-day needs of [class members]; 4) the 1997 Plan of Action obligations that have been “morphed into new requirements” under Revised Table IV and that are “long detached from remedying the original constitutional issues”; and 5) Appendix A obligations that consist of vague and aspirational language, making disengagement impossible. Id. at *12 (citations omitted). Third, while conceding they have not substantially complied with all their decree obligations, Defendants maintained they have remedied all constitutional violations. Id. They argued they have thus attained the “objects” of the consent decrees, and they have corrected all - eighteen areas of deficiencies the district court identified in its 1990 Order. Id. at *12-13. And if more is required, they insisted, this case will remain a never-ending process of continuing quality control. Id. at *12. Fourth, Defendants argued that the increased litigation costs inhibit New Mexico’s ability to fund other important programs. Id. at *12-13. For instance, New Mexico has spent more than $50 million related to this litigation in the last eight years. Id. at *12. And, as of 2009, the average yearly cost to provide services to class members had risen from $67,290.00 to $135,535.00 per class member, while New Mexico’s $32,992.00 per capita income was the ninth lowest in the United States. Id. at *13. Based on these four changed circumstances, Defendants contended that notions of federalism supported their request for relief. Indeed, they argued that federalism concerns are heightened here because the consent decrees have the effect of dictating state and local budget priorities and .improperly depriving state officials of their designated legislative and executive powers. Id. at *13. In an order issued in June 2016, the court ruled that Defendants had not met their burden to show the existence of a significant change in fact warranting vaca-tur of all pertinent orders and termination of the case. First, the court stated that “while Defendants’ obligations are onerous,” Defendants never identified when these asserted changed factual circumstances occurred; indeed,' “[s]ome of the complained about developments have been happening for years.” Id. at *14. Next, the court concluded that Defendants have not shown that the objects of the pertinent decrees have been attained. While the court recognized that the decrees were designed to restore class members to the position they would have occupied absent violations of federal law, the court stated that the “more specific ‘essential’ purposes’ ” of those decrees “are to provide class members with adequate health care, a reasonably safe environment, and supported employment opportunities.” Id. (quoting 2012 Order at 33). And based on Defendants’ concessions that they have not substantially complied with all the decree obligations, the court concluded that Defendants “have not fulfilled the essential purposes of the pertinent decrees.” Id. Further, the court found Defendants’ assertion that they long ago remedied all constitutional violations to be “somewhat misleading.” Id. at *14-15. The court explained that the decree obligations in the JSD, the Plan of Action, and Appendix A “all flowed from [its] original findings of [federal] violations in 1990.” Id. at *15. And it noted that Revised Table IV was developed in response to the 2012 findings of approximately 100 decree violations. Id. The court stated that it “correlated its specific findings of violations in 2012 with enumerated requirements in the JSD, Plan of Action, and Appendix A.” Id. “Stated differently, the October 2012 violations evolved from compliance issues concerning obligations that first appeared in the JSD, Plan of Action, and Appendix A that Defendants had not yet satisfied.” Id. The court also took issue with Defendants’ characterization of the 2012 Order as finding no ongoing violations of federal law. The court clarified that it had made no findings in its 2012 Order on continuing violations of federal law. Id. Although Plaintiffs had argued that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act and .the ADA, the court ruled then that “there was not sufficient evidence of discrimination under” either Act. Id. But the court explained that it was not asked, and thus made no findings on, whether Defendants otherwise continued to violate class members’ constitutional rights. Id. With respect to the 2016 motion to terminate oversight, the district court likewise did not resolve the question of current compliance with federal law, stating it “is not in the position to assess, and, therefore, cannot conclude that Defendants are no longer violating constitutional or federal law.” Id. at *16. But “[b]ecause all of [the] outstanding obligations grew out of the Court’s 1990 Order and/or the related 2012 findings of violations,” the district court concluded that “Defendants have not convinced the Court that they have satisfied the essential purposes of the JSD, Plan of Action, Appendix A, and Revised Table IV.” Id. at *16. The court then rejected Defendants’ claim that principles of federalism dictated the termination of oversight. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court, in Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009), stated that federalism concerns are heightened when a consent decree, has the effect of dictating state budget allocations. Id. And it conceded that “increasing fees and costs associated with this litigation are detrimental to the State’s, interest.” Id. But the court reasoned that “first and foremost,” the Horne Court asked if the State had fulfilled its obligations under federal law and achieved the objectives of the pertinent order. Id. The district court answered that question in the negative, stating: “Unlike Horne, Defendants have not shown that they have fulfilled their outstanding obligations, ‘by other means.’” Id. at *17 (quoting Horne, 557 U.S. at 439, 129 S.Ct. 2579). Ultimately, the court concluded that Defendants “have not come close to showing that vacatur of all of the orders and decrees is suitably tailored to the proposed changed circumstances.” Id. Nor have Defendants “demonstrated that a durable remedy is in place sufficient to justify va-catur of all of the Court’s orders.” Id. at *18. In other words, Defendants had not shown “that it is unlikely that'the prohibited conditions or actions will recur.” Id. (quoting LaShawn A. ex rel. Moore v. Fenty, 701 F.Supp.2d 84, 111 (D.D.C. 2010), aff'd sub nom. LaShawn A. ex rel. Moore v. Gray, 412 Fed.Appx. 315 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). The court therefore denied the motion. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, Defendants assert that the district court abused its discretion when it denied their Rule 60(b)(5) motion. Defendants contend significant changes in factual circumstances warrant termination of all consent decrees and of the court’s oversight. Specifically, they claim that compliance with the decrees 'has become substantially more onerous, the decrees have become unworkable due to unforeseen obstacles, and continued enforcement of the decrees would be detrimental to the public interest. They also argue that the district court misapplied Horne by requiring them to show attainment of specific essential purposes identified by,the district court rather than compliance with federal law. A. Appellate Jurisdiction Before addressing the merits, we must first resolve the parties’ dispute about whether the district court’s June 2016 order is a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have appellate jurisdiction over “final decisions of the' district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A ‘final decision’ is ordinarily one that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Hayes Fam. Tr. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945)); see also D&H Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443, 1444 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (stating that § 1291 “has consistently been held to require the termination of all matters as to all parties and causes of action before an appeal may be taken”). “[P]ut differently,” a final decision is “one by which the district court ‘disassociates itself from a case.’ ” McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1288, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Swint v. Chambers Cty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995)). Although “a final judgment is the paradigmatic ‘final decision’ appealable under § 1291,” not “every case with a final judgment in it is appealable.” Id. Instead, “every post-judgment decision must be assessed on its own terms to determine whether it is a final decision amenable to appeal.” Id. at 1293. As relevant here, “[t]he general rules governing our review of a district court’s order granting or denying a Rule 60(b) motion are faii-ly well settled.” Stubblefield v. Windsor Capital Grp., 74 F.3d 990, 993 (10th Cir. 1996). “We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to reach the merits of an appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b)'motion, provided the'ruling or judgment the Rule 60(b) motion challenged was a final decision of the district court.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also McClendon, 630 F.3d at 1294 (recognizing that a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion “usually qualifies] as [a] final- decision! ] for purposes of § 1291 because [it] usually signals] that the district court’s business is done, that it has disassociated itself from the case, [and] that we may act without stepping on the district court’s toes”). Here, Defendants moved under Rule 60(b) to- vacate all pertinent orders— the JSD, the Plan of Action, Appendix A, and Revised Table IV—and to terminate this case. The parties and district court agree that the pertinent orders are consent decrees. See Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at *9. And all agree that consent decrees are, in effect, final decisions within the meaning of Rule 60(b). See Johnson v. Lodge #93 of Fraternal Order of Police, 393 F.3d 1096, 1101 (10th Cir. 2004) (“A consent decree is a negotiated agreement that is entered as a judgment-of the court. Consent decrees .,. have characteristics both of contracts and of final judgments on the merits.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 (10th Cir. 1979) (noting that when “the underlying judgment was by consent [it] has the same force and effect for [Rule] 60(b) purposes as a judgment rendered on -the merits following trial”). Because the pertinent orders are consent decrees that are final orders under Rule 60(b), it necessarily follows that the district court’s June 2016 order denying relief under Rule 60(b)(5) from those consent decrees- is also final and appealable under § 1291. See Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Because consent decrees are considered final judgments we have jurisdiction to-review'the claims raised in the-motion to vacate the consent descrees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” (citatidn omitted)). Plaintiffs disagree. Relying on McClendon, they argue the district court’s June 2016 order is not a final, appealable order because it signals that more litigation is on the way. Plaintiffs believe future litigation will occur when they inevitably file another motion for remedial relief to remedy Defendants’ noncompliance with the consent decrees. In other words, the June 2016 Order is not final because the district court will continue to monitor Defendants’ compliance with its prior consent decrees (i.e., the JSD, the Plan of Action, Appendix'A, and Revised Table IV). But under McClendon, that the .district court may have to continue to oversee Defendants’ compliance with the consent decrees is not enough to strip the June 2016 order of its status as a final decision. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the June 2016 order will result in more litigation on the merits in the district court. See McClendon, 630 F.3d at 1292-94. If the June 2016 order “ensures litigation on the merits will continue in the district court,” then it is not final under- § 1291. Id. at 1293. But if it does not, and it is otherwise a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a final decision of the district court, then it is a final decision under § 1291. See id. at 1293-94; Jeff D., 365 F.3d at 850. Under this formulation, the June 2016 order is a final, appealable decision. First, the June 2016 order does not signal that more litigation on the merits is on the way. In fact, the 1990 order, which followed a lengthy trial, resolved the merits of the litigation, and the district court retained jurisdiction only to oversee implementation of the ensuing consent decrees. Second, as discussed above, the 2016 order denied a Rule 60(b) motion challenging several final decisions of the district court. To be sure, the June 2016 order does not result in the district court dissociating itself from the case. Much the opposite, it means the district court will, as it has since it issued the 1990 Order, continue to oversee Defendants’ compliance with the pertinent consent decrees. But this fact alone does not deprive us of jurisdiction. After all, each decree was a final, appealable decision under § 1291, even though the district court continued to oversee each decree’s implementation. See Johnson, 393 F.3d at 1101; V.T.A., 597 F.2d at 224. If the district court’s continued oversight would not have divested us of appellate jurisdiction then, it should not do so now. In sum, the finality test asks whether the ruling challenged in the denied Rule 60(b) motion was “a final decision of the district court.” Stubblefield, 74 F.3d at 993. Here, that test is met. The June 2016 order is a final, appealable order and, thus, we have appellate jurisdiction under § 1291. B. The Rule 60(b)(5) Motion We now turn to Defendants’ argument that termination of all pertinent -orders and of this, case is appropriate due to significant changes in factual circumstances. Our analysis proceeds in three parts. First,’ we discuss the relevant standard of review. Second, we outline the law governing Rule 60(b)(5) motions in institutional reform litigation. Third, we apply that standard to the 'facts of this case. 1. Standard of Review We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an' abuse .of discretion. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000). In the Rule 60(b) context, we review the district court’s ruling only “to determine if a definite, clear or unmistakable error occurred below.” Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc. 426 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A reviewing court may reverse only 'if it finds a complete absence of a reasonable basis and is certain that the decision is wrong.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “A clear example of an abuse of discretion exists where the trial court fails to consider the applicable legal standard or the facts upon which the exercise of its discretionary judgment is based.” Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion raises for our review only the district court’s order denying the motion, and not the underlying judgment itself. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1009. 2. Legal Standard A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment is an extraordinary remedy and may be granted- only in exceptional circumstances. Id.; see V.T.A., Inc., 597 F.2d at 223 n.7 (10th Cir. 1979). The motion may not be used as a substitute for direct appeal. See Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1009. Rule 60(b)(5) permits relief from a judgment or order if “[1] the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; [2] it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or [3] applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (emphasis added). Use of the disjunctive “or” demonstrates “that each of the provision’s three grounds for relief is independently sufficient and therefore that relief may be warranted even if [a movant has] not ‘satisfied’ the original order.” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 454, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009). Defendants seek relief on the ground that ongoing enforcement of the pertinent decrees is no longer equitable. We now turn to a discussion of the limits of federal involvement in institutional reform litigation and of the two leading Supreme Court cases addressing the no-longer-equitable basis for Rule 60(b)(5) relief: Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), and Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009). a. Consent Decrees Generally A consent decree “entered in federal court must be directed to protects ing federal interests.” Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437, 124 S.Ct. 899, 157 L.Ed.2d 855 (2004). The consent decree “must spring from, and serve to resolve, a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986)). Equity requires a federal court fashioning and implementing a consent decree to focus on three factors. See Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977). First, a federal consent decree must “be remedial in nature” and thus “designed as nearly as possible to restore the victims of [illegal] conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct.” Id. at 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the nature and scope of the remedy provided by a federal consent decree depends on the nature and scope of the federal-law violation. Id. at 280, 282, 97 S.Ct. 2749. This means a “federal-court decree[ ] must directly address and relate to the [federal-law] violation itself.” Id. at 282, 97 S.Ct. 2749. And it must be “tailored to cure the condition that offends” federal law. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But a decree exceeds appropriate limits if it is “aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate [federal law] or does not flow from such a violation.” Id. Third, federal courts “must take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs,” consistent with the demands of federal law. Id. at 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749. Indeed, principles of federalism require that federal courts give “significant weight to the views of government officials,” and that “state officials with front-line responsibility for administering [a state program] be given latitude and substantial discretion.” Frew, 540 U.S. at 442, 124 S.Ct. 899 (internal quotation marks omitted). Importantly, federal consent decrees are temporary solutions that may be kept in place only as long as necessary to cure an unlawful condition. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88-89, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995). The Supreme Court has cautioned that federal courts should not continue their “oversight of state programs for long periods of time ... absent an ongoing violation of federal law.” Frew, 540 U.S. at 441, 124 S.Ct. 899. Thus, a “federal court must exercise its equitable powers to ensure that when the objects of the decree have been attained, responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials.” Id. at 442, 124 S.Ct. 899. Keeping a consent decree in place any longer than necessary to assure compliance with federal law risks violating principles of federalism and “improperly depriving] future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.” Id. at 441, 124 S.Ct. 899; see also John B v. Emkes, 710 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that a consent decree “may remain in force only as long as it continues to remedy a violation of federal law”); United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 701, 710 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The [Supreme] Court has repeatedly reminded us that institutional reform injunctions were meant to be temporary solutions, not permanent interventions, and could be kept in place only so long as the violation continued.”). b. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 372, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), pretrial detainees held at a county jail in Massachusetts sued the county, state, and related entities, claiming they were being held under unconstitutional conditions. The district court ruled that conditions at the jail were constitutionally deficient; thus, the district court enjoined the state defendants from, among other things, housing two or more inmates in a single cell. Id. at 372-73, 112 S.Ct. 748. When conditions at the jail did not improve, the district court ordered the state defendants to renovate another existing facility to serve as a substitute detention center. Id. at 373-74, 112 S.Ct. 748. The First Circuit affirmed and ordered that the jail be closed unless the state defendants timely presented a plan to create a constitutionally adequate facility for the pretrial detainees. Id. at 374, 112 S.Ct. 748. Days before the deadline to present a plan for a new facility, the state defendants submitted a plan to create a substitute facility with only single-occupancy cells, and the district court entered a consent decree obligating the state defendants to construct a facility containing 309 single occupancy rooms. Id. at 374-75, 112 S.Ct. 748. When the inmate population outpaced population projections, the parties moved the district court to modify the decree to provide a facility with an increased number of cells. Id. at 375-76, 112 S.Ct. 748. The district court granted the modification on the condition that “single-cell occupancy is maintained” under the new plan for the facility. Id. at 376, 112 S.Ct. 748. The state defendants again moved to modify the consent decree, this time to allow for double bunkipg of male detainees in roughly one-third of the cells in the new jail. Id. The state defendants attributed the need for a second modification to a further increase in the population of pretrial detainees. Id. The state defendants argued that the continued increase in the pretrial detainee population—a change in fact—coupled with a change in law regarding the constitutionality of double bunking pretrial detainees, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), supported the requested modification. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 376, 112 S.Ct. 748. The district court denied the motion, in part, because the state defendants failed to make a “clear showing of [a] grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions.” Id. at 377, 112 S.Ct. 748 (quoting United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932)). The district court explained that modification would violate a primary purpose of the decree—to provide for a separate cell for each detainee—although it never decided whether double celling would'be unconstitutional. Id. at 377, 112 S.Ct. 748. The First Circuit affirmed. Id. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded, so the lower courts could apply the proper standard to modification requests under Rule 60(b)(5). See id. at 393, 112 S.Ct. 748. The Court began by emphasizing the need for flexibility when considering a motion for modification of a consent decree in institutional reform litigation. Id. at 380-83, 112 S.Ct. 748. After ali, consent decrees in such cases “often remain in place for extended periods of time, [meaning] the likelihood of significant changes occurring during the life of the decree is increased.” Id. at 380, 112 S.Ct. 748. The Court further explained that the experience of the Courts of Appeals “demonstrated that' a flexible approach is often essential to achieving the goals of reform litigation,” as the Courts of Appeals observed that consent decrees frequently “reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact [ ] the public’s, right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions.” Id. at 381, 112 S.Ct. 748 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court then outlined what a movant must show when seeking modification of a consent decree under Rule 60(b)(5). The party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of showing that “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” warrants revision of the decree. Id. at 384, 112 S.Ct. 748. Changed, factual circumstances may warrant modification of a consent decree when the changed circumstances “make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous,” when “a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles,” or when “enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.” Id. at 384, 112 S.Ct. 748. A party need not show that a change in fact was both unforeseen and unforeseeable. Id. at 385, 112 S.Ct. 748. Conversely, a court should deny a party’s request for a modification under Rule 60(b)(5) if the party merely establishes that “it is no longer convenient [for the moving party] to live with the terms of a consent decree.” Id. at 383, 112 S.Ct. 748. Furthermore, a modification should be denied “where a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree.” Id. at 385, 112 S.Ct. 748. The Court explained: If it is clear that a party anticipated changing conditions that would make performance of the decree more onerous but nevertheless agreed to the decree, that party would have to satisfy a heavy burden to convince a court that it agreed to the decree in good faith, made a reasonable effort to comply with the decree, and should be relieved of the undertaking under Rule 60(b). Id. If a party meets its burden of establishing a change in fact that warrants modification of a consent decree, the district court should examine “whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.” Id. at 391, 112 S.Ct. 748. This. analysis focuses on whether the'proposed modification “is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances.” Id. In performing this analysis, a court must bear in mind that the public interest and principles of federalism require a federal court to defer .to state or local government officials and to consider a state or local government’s financial constraints. Id. at 392, 112 S.Ct. 748. But a modification “must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation.” Id. at 391, 112 S.Ct. 748. Additionally, in accord with the requirement that a modification be tailored to the change,in circumstances, the existence of a change in circumstances often will not justify a modification to the consent decree that lowers the terms of the consent decree to “the constitutional floor.” Id. In this sense, a court modifying a consent decree may “do no more” to the consent decree than is warranted by the change in circumstances and “should not ‘turn aside to inquire whether some of the provisions of the decree ... could have been opposed with success if the defendants had offered opposition.’ ” Id. at 391-92, 112 S.Ct. 748 (quoting United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 116-17, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932)). Thus, even where a change in circumstances occurs, the plaintiff will retain those benefits secured under the consent decree that are not impugned by the change in circumstances. See id. The Court then instructed the district court on remand to first consider whether the purported change in factual circumstances—the upsurge in the pretrial detainee population—was foreseen by the state defendants. Id. at 385, 112 S.Ct. 748. But the Court also advised that the district court erred by concluding that modification was inappropriate simply because it would not provide for a separate cell for each detainee. The Court explained: Even if the decree is construed as an undertaking by [the state defendants] to provide single cells for pretrial detainees, to relieve [them] from that promise based on changed conditions does not necessarily violate the basic purpose of the decree. That purpose was to provide a remedy for what had been found, based on a variety of factors, including double celling, to be unconstitutional conditions obtaining in the [jail]. If modification of one term of a consent decree defeats the purpose of the decree, obviously modification would be all but impossible. That cannot be the rule.' The District Court was thus in error in holding that ... modification of the single cell requirement was necessarily forbidden. Id. at 387, 112 S.Ct. 748. c. Horne v. Flores In Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 439, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009), the Supreme Court was again tasked with determining whether the. lower courts applied the correct standard in denying a Rule 60(b)(5) motion. There, a class of English Language-Learner (ELL) students and their parents in Arizona sued the state for violating the Equal Educational Opportunities , Act of 1974 (EEOA), which requires a state “to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers, that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.” Id. at 438-39, 129 S.Ct. 2579. After a trial, the district court concluded that “defendants were violating the EEOA because the amount of funding the State allocated for- the special needs of ELL students (ELL incremental funding) was arbitrary and not related to -the actual funding needed to cover the costs of ELL instruction.” Id. at 441, 129 S.Ct. 2579. Over the next'several years, the district court- entered various additional orders and injunctions aimed at improving the state’s ELL incremental funding. Id. For instance, the court ordered the-state to “prepare a cost study to establish the proper appropriation to effectively implement ELL programs.” Id. (internal--quotation marks omitted). And it later required the state to, within ninety days of the order’s issuance, “appropriately and constitutionally fund the state’s ELL programs taking into account the [court’s] previous orders.” Id. After the state failed to comply with these orders, the district court held the state in contempt and imposed a fine for every day until the state came into compliance. Id. at 442, 129 S.Ct. 2579. After accruing over $20 million in fines, the state legislature passed HB 2064, a bill that was designed “to implement a permanent funding solution to the problems identified” by the district court. Id. The Governor allowed HB 2064 to become law without her signature, and the state presented it to the district court for approval. Id. at 443, 129 S.Ct. 2579. Because the Governor did not approve of HB 2064’s funding provisions, two members of the state legislature intervened to support the bill. Id. Intervenors then moved to “purge” the district court’s contempt order in light of HB 2064 and, in the alternative, for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) based on changed circumstances. Id. The district court denied the Rule 60(b)(5) motion because HB 2064 “did not establish a funding system that rationally relates funding available to the actual costs of all elements of ELL instruction.” Id. at 444, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating that “relief would be appropriate only if petitioners had shown either that there are no longer incremental costs associated with ELL programs in Arizona or that Arizona had altered its funding model.” Id. at 445, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court reversed. The Court first reiterated that a party may move to modify or vacate an order under Rule 60(b)(5) if “ ‘a significant change either in factual conditions or in law' renders continued enforcement ‘detrimental to the public interest.’ ” Id. at 447, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (quoting Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384, 112 S.Ct. 748). “[0]nce a party carries this burden, a court abuses its discretion when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of such changes.” Id. at 447-49, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court then stressed that Rule 60(b)(5) serves an important function in institutional reform litigation for three reasons. Id. First, injunctions and consent decrees in such cases often remain in place for many years, “and the passage of time frequently brings about changed circumstances” (e.g., “changes in the nature of the underlying problem” and “new policy insights”) “that warrant reexamination of the original judgment.” Id. at 448, 129 S.Ct. 2579. Second, injunctions and decrees in reform cases tend to “raise sensitive federalism concerns” because such cases often “involve[ ] areas of core state responsibility.” Id. And those federalism concerns “are heightened when ... a federal court decree has the effect of dictating state or local budget priorities.” Id. Recognizing that states have limited resources, the Court expressed sensitivity toward the fact that “[w]hen a federal court orders that money be appropriated for one program, the effect is often to take funds away from other important programs.” Id. Third, seemingly endless injunctions and decrees in these types of cases commonly “bind state and local officials to the policy preferences of their predecessors and may thereby ‘improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.’” Id. at 449, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (quoting Frew, 540 U.S. at 441, 124 S.Ct. 899). Successor officials may bring new insights and solutions to ongoing “problems of allocating revenues and resources,” but overbroad or outdated decrees may inhibit their ability to respond to those problems and fulfill their duties as democratically-elected officials. Id. In sum, a long-lasting and unmodified consent decree not only raises serious federalism concerns but it may also restrain the opportunities for the class protected by the decree because an overbroad and unyielding decree limits financial resources available to governments for the implementation of new innovations and policies that may serve the needs of the protected class better than the requirements embodied in the decree. For the foregoing reasons, courts must take a flexible approach to motions under Rule 60(b)(5) where the moving party seeks relief from a long-lasting decree. Id. at 450, 129 S.Ct. 2579. This flexible approach “seeks to return control to state and local officials as soon as a violation of federal law has been remedied.” Id. at 451, 129 S.Ct. 2579. To that end, eourts must be wary “that ‘federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate federal law or does not flow from such a violation.’” Id. at 450, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (quoting Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282, 97 S.Ct. 2749). “ ‘If a federal consent decree is not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law,’ it may ‘improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.’” Id. (quoting Frew, 540 U.S. at 441, 124 S.Ct. 899). Accordingly, “a critical question in [the] Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry is whether the objective of the [challenged decree] has been achieved.” Id. (citing Frew, 540 U.S. at 442, 124 S.Ct. 899). “If a durable remedy has been implemented, continued enforcement of the order is not only unnecessary, but improper.” Id. (citing Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282, 97 S.Ct. 2749). Applying these standards, the Court in Horne concluded that the Ninth Circuit erred in two ways. First, instead of applying a flexible approach, the Ninth Circuit “used a heightened standard that paid insufficient attention to federalism concerns.” Id. at 451, 129 S.Ct. 2579. Based on the federalism concerns, application of a flexible approach was “critical.” Id. at 452, 129 S.Ct. 2579. The Court instructed that application of the flexible approach requires that ‘“[w]hen the objects of the decree have been attained’—namely, when [compliance with federal law] has been achieved—‘responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations must be returned to the State and its officials.’” Id. (quoting Frew, 540 U.S. at 442, 124 S.Ct. 899). Second, the Court held that instead of “inquiring broadly into whether changed conditions in [the schools] provided evidence of an ELL program that complied with the EEOA,” id. at 451, 129 S.Ct. 2579, the Ninth Circuit performed an inquiry that was “too narrow,” “focus[ing] almost exclusively on the sufficiency of incremental funding,” id. at 452, 129 S.Ct. 2579. But the narrow inquiry—focusing on whether a prior judgment has been satisfied—addresses only one of the bases for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) and fails to consider whether relief is warranted because “applying [a judgment] prospectively is no longer equitable.” Id. at 454, 129 S.Ct. 2579. For purposes of the equity basis for modification, the Ninth Circuit’s narrow inquiry also overlooked the possibility that specific items in an initial decree may, with the passage of time and changing circumstances, no longer be the only way, or even the best way, to attain the objects of the decree and assume compliance with federal law. See id. at 447-48, 451-54, 129 S.Ct. 2579. To determine whether relief was proper under the equity basis for modification, the Ninth Circuit “needed to ascertain whether ongoing enforcement of the original order was supported by an ongoing violation of federal law.” Id. at 454, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (citing Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282, 97 S.Ct. 2749); see also id. at 468, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (repeating that a proper Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry should ask whether the school district “is now providing equal educational opportunities to ELL students”). The Court explained that while the Ninth Circuit focused on ELL incremental funding, “funding is simply a means [of complying with the EEOA], not the end (here, the EEOA).” Id. at 454-55, 129 S.Ct. 2579. By requiring the state.“to demonstrate ‘appropriate action’ [mandated by the EEOA] through a particular .funding mechanism, the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its own educational and budgetary policy judgments for those of the state and local officials to whom such decisions are properly entrusted.” Id. at 455, 129 S.Ct. 2579. Stated otherwise, the Ninth Circuit should have “consider[ed] the broader question whether, as a result of important changes during the intervening years, the State was fulfilling its obligation under the EEOA by other means.” Id. at 439, 129 S.Ct. 2579. The Court then remanded for the district court to make “up-to-date” findings and to consider whether four changed circumstances advanced by the defendants warranted releasing • the state from the earlier judgment. See id. at 469-70, 129 S.Ct. 2579. d. Applicability of Horne & Tension between Horne and R