PHOENIX — The Legislature has hired an attorney best known for  his role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton over l’affaire Lewinsky  to argue to the U.S. Supreme Court the state should not have to spend any more money than it does now to teach English to students who aren’t proficient in the language.

 Ken Starr has agreed to represent the lawmakers who contend that both a trial judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred in concluding that provisions of a 2006 law designed to put the state into compliance with federal education laws are illegal.

 But state School Superintendent Tom Horne, who also is challenging the lower court rulings, hopes to actually convince the nation’s high court to throw out the entire case. Horne, who has his own legal counsel in the dispute, contends that federal courts no longer have any jurisdiction at all.

 Whether any of the attorneys actually will be able to make their arguments remains unclear: The U.S. Supreme Court has not decided whether to even consider the dispute.

 What also remains undecided is exactly who is paying Starr.

 Barrett Marson, spokesman for House Speaker Jim Weiers, said he presumes the Risk Management Division — the state’s self- insurance fund — will pick up the $910 an hour Starr intends to charge. But Alan Ecker, a spokesman for the division, said no such contract has been approved — or, so far, even requested.

 Marson said the Legislature is entitled to hire who it wants.

 Anyway, he said, it simply is substituting one lawyer for another. Marson said David Cantelme, who has so far been representing the Legislature and is being paid by Risk Management, lacks the experience Starr has at the nation’s high court.

 He said the fact Starr is charging $585 more per hour than Cantelme is irrelevant, especially if the state wins.

 “Whatever the state pays for Ken Starr pales in comparison to what it would cost the state if we lost at the Supreme Court,’ Marson said. He said Starr’s experience includes arguing more than 35 cases before the high court.

 What that experience also includes, Marson said, is Starr’s 1998 investigation of Clinton in connection with the Whitewater real estate deal.

 But his inquiry ended up focusing on Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, complete with evidence of a stai on a blue dress. Based on that, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in trying to cover up the affair.

 The Senate, however, refused to convict.

 “But that’s not the point,’’ Marson said.

 The lawsuit, filed in 1992, charged the state was not providing enough cash to help students who come to school speaking anothe language, a violation of federal laws which require states to ensure that all students have an opportunity to learn English. A federal judge, in a 2000 ruling, agreed.

 Since then the case has been in and out of court amid disputes over whether various legislative funding schemes put Arizona into compliance.

 The latest plan, approved by lawmakers in 2006, had the state come up with teaching “models,’’ with schools then putting in requests for how much more they need, above what they now get in extra funds for “English language learners.’’ The requests totaled more than $275 million; lawmakers earlier this year voted to provide just $40.6 million.

 In their ruling earlier this year, the 9th Circuit judges said two provisions in that law are illegal. One reduces state aid by certain federal funds that schools now get; the other limits th extra cash to no more than two years per student.

 Those two objections provide the basis for the state’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 Horne, however, said he believes the state can prove to th Supreme Court it made a “reasonable effort’’ to teach English t all students, even before the latest $40.6 million infusion. H said that is all the federal law requires.

 In a separate development Thursday, the trial judge has decided to conduct a hearing to determine whether the $40.6 million is enough to comply with federal law. That comes in response to efforts by Tim Hogan, who represents the plaintiffs in the long- running lawsuit, to convince Judge Raner Collins that the state needs to give schools more money.

 All that could become moot, however, if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case and sides with Horne and the Legislature and dismisses the entire case.