34 C.F.R. § 76.532
Use of funds for religion prohibited
(a) No State or subgrantee may use its grant or subgrant to pay for any of the following:
(1) Religious worship, instruction, or proselytization.
(2) Equipment or supplies to be used for any of the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993).
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). “[6] Respondent first argues that 34 CFR § 76.532 (a)(1) (1992), a regulation promulgated under the IDEA, precludes it from using federal funds to provide an interpreter to James at Salpointe.”
Chaya Loffman v. California Dep't of Educ., 119 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2024). “” 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 ; 2 C.F.R. § 3474.15 (c)(1).”
M.L. Ex Rel. Leiman v. Smith, 867 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2017). “, 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 (a)(1) (funding regulation prohibiting a state from “usting] its grant or sub-grant to pay for .”
K.R. Ex Rel. M.R. v. Anderson Cmty. Sch. Corp., 887 F. Supp. 1217 (S.D. Ind. 1995). “1991), holding a school district was not required to provide special education services at a public high school closer to plaintiffs house than the school where the services were provided; (3) an IDEA regulation prohibiting use of funds for religious purposes, 34 C.F.R. § 76.532…”
Matthew B. Goodall, an Infant by His Father & Next Friend, Robert B. Goodall Robert B. Goodall Kathleen N. Goodall v. Stafford Cnty. Sch. Bd., 930 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1991). “Finally, lest there be any remaining question as to a conflict between the EHA and the prohibitions against funding to sectarian schools imposed by Virginia, 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 of EDGAR provides, in pertinent part, (a) No State or subgrantee may use its grant or subgrant to pay…”
Larry Zobrest Sandra Zobrest, Husband & Wife James Zobrest, a Minor, by Larry & Sandra Zobrest, His Parents v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1992). “…context of the federal prohibition on the use of EHA funds for religious "worship, instruction, or proselytization." 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 (1991).”
L.M. ex rel. H.M. v. Evesham Twp. Bd. of Educ., 256 F. Supp. 2d 290 (D.N.J. 2003). “In resolving the *297 question of whether the school district was obligated to provide such services, the Fourth Circuit held that 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 , which bans the use of federal funds to pay for religious “worship, instruction, or proselytization,” precludes LEAs from…”
Russman v. Sobol, 85 F.3d 1050 (2d Cir. 1996). “Goodall re *1056 lied, inter alia, on 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 , which prohibits the use of IDEA funds for “religious .”
Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. California Off. of Admin. Hearings, 903 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1990). “34 C.F.R. § 76.532 . Similarly, California prohibits the state from contracting with a sectarian hospital for instructional services.”
Russman v. Bd. of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Watervliet, 945 F. Supp. 37 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). “Subsequently, by Memorandum-Decision and Order dated June 22, 1994 (“MDO”), Magistrate Judge Smith denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment—finding that the provision of the services of a consultant teacher and a teaching…”
LM Ex Rel. HM v. Evesham Tp. Bd. of Educ., 256 F. Supp. 2d 290 (D.N.J. 2003). “In resolving the *297 question of whether the school district was obligated to provide such services, the Fourth Circuit held that 34 C.F.R. § 76.532 , which bans the use of federal funds to pay for religious "worship, instruction, or proselytization," precludes LEAs from…”
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.