U.S. Code » Title 20 » Chapter CHAPTER 28— HIGHER EDUCATION RESOURCES AND STUDENT ASSISTANCE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— INSTITUTIONAL AID › Part Part D— Historically Black College and University Capital Financing

20 U.S.C. § 1066c

Limitations on Federal insurance for bonds issued by designated bonding authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Limit on amountAt no time shall the aggregate principal amount of outstanding bonds insured under this part together with any accrued unpaid interest thereon exceed $1,100,000,000, of which—(1) not more than $733,333,333 shall be used for loans to eligible institutions that are private historically Black colleges and universities; and(2) not more than $366,666,667 shall be used for loans to eligible institutions which are historically Black public colleges and universities.For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), Lincoln University of Pennsylvania is an historically Black public institution. No institution of higher education that has received assistance under section 123 of this title shall be eligible to receive assistance under this part.(b) Limitation on credit authority

The authority of the Secretary to issue letters of credit and insurance under this part is effective only to the extent provided in advance by appropriations Acts.

(c) Religious activity prohibition

No loan may be made under this part for any educational program, activity or service related to sectarian instruction or religious worship or provided by a school or department of divinity or to an institution in which a substantial portion of its functions is subsumed in a religious mission.

(d) Discrimination prohibition

No loan may be made to an institution under this part if the institution discriminates on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex (to the extent provided in title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.]), or disabling condition; except that the prohibition with respect to religion shall not apply to an institution which is controlled by or which is closely identified with the tenets of a particular religious organization if the application of this section would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title III, § 344, formerly title VII, § 724, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title VII, § 704, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 745; renumbered title III, § 344, Pub. L. 105–244, title III, § 301(a)(3), (4), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1636; Pub. L. 110–315, title III, § 314(c), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3181.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Education Amendments of 1972, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 92–318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235. Title IX of the Act, known as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, is classified principally to chapter 38 (§ 1681 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1681 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1132c–3 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 105–244.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 344 of Pub. L. 89–329 was classified to section 1069 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 99–498.

Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–315, § 314(c)(1), substituted “$1,100,000,000” for “$375,000,000” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 110–315, § 314(c)(2), substituted “$733,333,333” for “$250,000,000”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 110–315, § 314(c)(3), substituted “$366,666,667” for “$125,000,000”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2020–2020 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§1011f(h)(5)(D) (Disclosures of For- eign Gifts)  20 U. S. C. §1066c(d) (Historically Black College and University Capital Financing; Limitations on Federal Insurance Bonds Issued by Desig- nated Bonding Authority)  20 U.”
Exclusion of Religiously Affiliated Schs. from Charter-Sch. Grant Prog. (OLC 2020). “We reasoned that the condition denied federal support to “projects that have no direct connection to the religious activi- ties of ” a university “simply because of the religious mission of the institution”—even to projects that had no “inherent religious character.”
Exclusion of Religiously Affiliated Schs. from Charter-Sch. Grant Prog. (OLC 2020). “We reasoned that the condition denied federal support to “projects that have no direct connection to the religious activi- ties of ” a university “simply because of the religious mission of the institution”—even to projects that had no “inherent religious character.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1066c(c) — 2 cases
Exclusion of Religiously Affiliated Schs. from Charter-Sch. Grant Prog. (OLC 2020). “We reasoned that the condition denied federal support to “projects that have no direct connection to the religious activi- ties of ” a university “simply because of the religious mission of the institution”—even to projects that had no “inherent religious character.”
Exclusion of Religiously Affiliated Schs. from Charter-Sch. Grant Prog. (OLC 2020). “We reasoned that the condition denied federal support to “projects that have no direct connection to the religious activi- ties of ” a university “simply because of the religious mission of the institution”—even to projects that had no “inherent religious character.”
— 20 U.S.C. § 1066c(d) — 1 case
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “§1011f(h)(5)(D) (Disclosures of For- eign Gifts)  20 U. S. C. §1066c(d) (Historically Black College and University Capital Financing; Limitations on Federal Insurance Bonds Issued by Desig- nated Bonding Authority)  20 U.”
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.