"Lau" transformed schooling for millions of students, but we should examine what its "equal protection" and assimilationist logic did not entail and thereby illuminate prospective academic and social good that it did not generate. This paper does just that by examining Nebraska's well-resourced second-largest district and how "Lau" left intact their notions of "language as problem" as the response rationale to students it identifies as "English learners" (ELs), while the development of dual language/bilingual education (DLBE) programs which embed "language as resource" or "language as right" orientations was endlessly deferred. We explore this conundrum through an anthropology-informed three-part main argument that first offers a brief account of the district's response to "Lau" over the past 50 years which orients our paper to the call of this special issue while simultaneously providing space to consider paths not taken. The second and third parts then juxtapose first- and third-person accounts to describe the unsuccessful mobilization over the last 12 years to create a DLBE track. We conclude by reviewing how the district complies with "Lau," but also how "Lau" has never been enough.