C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 42—NONDISCRIMINATION; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY; POLICIES AND PROCEDURES › Subpart C—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs—Implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1

28 C.F.R. § 42.101

Purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of this subpart is to implement the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”), to the end that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Justice.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: David K. v. Michael Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
David K. v. Michael Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections (1988) ca7 “Thus, plaintiffs say that the administration purposefully and intentionally discriminated against white inmates, who generally were not gang members, in violation of plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection.”
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Young (1978) mied “See 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq. 73 . On February 16, 1977 the Department of Justice amended 28 C.”
National Ass'n v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc. (1978) ded “of Interior); 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 to 42.112, 50.3 (Dept.”
McGlotten v. Connally (1972) dcd “2 (Department of Agriculture) ; 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 (Department of Justice) ; 45 C.”
Cross v. City of S.F. (2019) cand “be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"); 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 - 42.112. This claim is brought against the City.”
United States v. City of New Orleans (2013) laed “§ 2000d to 2000d-7 and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 -.112). 8 Seven lawyers and other staff from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.”
United States v. City of New Orleans (2013) laed “§ 2000d to 2000d-7, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 -.112 (“Title VI”). The United States seeks to remedy an alleged pattern or practice of conduct by the NOPD that subjects individuals to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unlawful…”
Chavez, Peso v. IL State Police (2001) ca7 “, and the administrative regulations of the Department of Justice effectuating Title VI, 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq. Plaintiffs sought, inter alia, a permanent injunction barring the ISP from stopping, detaining, and searching individuals on the basis of race with or without…”
McCarter v. State of Nevada (2025) nvd · cites it 3× “20 (5) Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and violation of 28 C.F.R. 42.101. 21 (6) Excessive force.”
In Re: Amendments to Rules 250-252 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration and Adoption of Rules 260-263 of (2021) pa · cites it 2× “§ 2000d; see also Department of Justice regulations regarding implementation of Title VI at 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq. (“Title VI” as used in these Rules refers collectively to the statute and its implementing regulations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.