20 U.S.C. § 1232a
Prohibition against Federal control of education
No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1972–2017 · leading case: United States v. Miami Univ. Ohio State Univ., the Chronicle of Higher Educ., Intervening, 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Miami Univ. Ohio State Univ., the Chronicle of Higher Educ., Intervening, 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002). “The Chronicle also argues that 20 U.S.C. § 1232a prevents the district court’s injunction.”
Ass'n of Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107 F. Supp. 3d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “APC seeks to create a conflict with 20 U.S.C. § 1232a out of whole cloth. APC contends also that the GE Rules, and what they are designed to measure, are not a reasonable construction of the statutory requirement that programs “prepare students for gainful employment in a…”
Ass'n of Private Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). “The Association argues that the program approval rule must fall along with the debt measures and, moreover, that it is affirmatively barred by 20 U.S.C. § 1232a, which prohibits the Department from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program…”
Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402 (1975). “And 20 U. S. C. § 1232a provides, inter alia: "No provision of .”
Brenda Crawford, Etc. v. Edwin L. Pittman, 708 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1983). “Rigid rules like the 180-day limitation violate not only the Act’s procedural command that each child receive individual consideration but also its substantive requirements that each child receive some benefit and that lack of funds not bear more heavily on handicapped than…”
Eli M. Spark v. The Catholic Univ. of Am., 510 F.2d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “No provision of the Act of September 30, 1950, Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress; the National Defense Education Act of 1958; the Act of September 23, 1950, Public Law 815, Eighty-first Congress; the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963; the Elementary and Secondary…”
Tipton v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 768 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.W. Va 1991). “The Secretary contends that the Department of Education is statutorily barred from evaluating the educational offerings of a school seeking to participate in Title IV, HEA programs.”
Mauricio v. Daugaard, 2017 SD 22 (S.D. 2017). “See 20 U.S.C § 1232a (2012) (prohibiting provisions from being construed to allow federal control of education) 2 ; 20 U.”
Lena Vern Dandridge v. Jefferson Par. Sch. Bd., 456 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1972). “The intervenors also suggest that 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232a 8 (Supp.1971) supports their position.”
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.