In 2007, the United States Supreme Court in Zuni Public School District No. 89 and Gallup-McKinley County School District No. 1 v. United States Department of Education ruled against the argument presented by the two Impact Aid New Mexico school districts. The districts alleged that the regulations used by the United States Department of Education to implement Section 8009 of the Impact Aid Program were not in compliance with the statute. In a five-to-four decision, the Court upheld the New Mexico school funding formula as equalized, thereby confirming that the state's formula did comply with Section 8009 of the Impact Aid Law, and that the Department's regulations implementing Section 8009 did comply with the language in the statute.

This study compared the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Zuni et al. v. USDOE et al. with congressional intent in the enactment of the 1994 Impact Aid Statute 20 U.S.C. 7709. A case study methodology was employed to address the comparison. Data were collected from two sources: documents and interviews. The content analysis of documentary sources reviewed approximately 2100 pages of congressional records, 1253 pages of legal briefs presented to the Supreme Court, and another 47 pages of Supreme Court Justices' opinions. Approximately 75 pages of interview transcripts from eight interviewees who were key players in the case were also analyzed.

Many factors affect the way that the United States Supreme Court reviews the cases presented before it. As the data were analyzed, four factors emerged as playing a role in the judicial review of Zuni et al. v. USDOE et al.: (1) the intended beneficiary of the Impact Aid school funding law P.L. 81-874 as viewed by the United States Supreme Court Justices; (2) the intent of the 1974 Dole Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in allowing states to take Impact Aid credit with an equalized funding formula; (3) the view of the Justices in interpreting the 1994 congressional wording and intent of the statutorily created equalization formula, and the subsequent rationale by the U.S. Secretary of Education in applying a pre-existing departmental regulatory appendix formula to the statutory formula; and (4) the ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) as interpreted by the Court to authorize the Court to interpret and rule on the congressional statutory intent of 20 U.S.C 7709.