U.S. Code » Title 20 » Chapter CHAPTER 31— GENERAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING EDUCATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— ENFORCEMENT

20 U.S.C. § 1234b

Measure of recovery

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Amount returned proportionate to extent of harm violation caused to an identifiable Federal interest; reduction; determination of identifiable Federal interest(1) A recipient determined to have made an unallowable expenditure, or to have otherwise failed to discharge its responsibility to account properly for funds, shall be required to return funds in an amount that is proportionate to the extent of the harm its violation caused to an identifiable Federal interest associated with the program under which the recipient received the award. Such amount shall be reduced in whole or in part by an amount that is proportionate to the extent the mitigating circumstances caused the violation.(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), an identifiable Federal interest includes, but is not limited to, serving only eligible beneficiaries; providing only authorized services or benefits; complying with expenditure requirements and conditions (such as set-aside, excess cost, maintenance of effort, comparability, supplement-not-supplant, and matching requirements); preserving the integrity of planning, application, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and maintaining accountability for the use of funds.(b) Reduction or waiver of amount based on mitigating circumstances; burden of proof; determination of mitigating circumstances; weight, etc., of written request for guidance(1) When a State or local educational agency is determined to have made an unallowable expenditure, or to have otherwise failed to discharge its responsibility to account properly for funds, and mitigating circumstances exist, as described in paragraph (2), the judge shall reduce such amount by an amount that is proportionate to the extent the mitigating circumstances caused the violation. Furthermore, the judge is authorized to determine that no recovery is justified when mitigating circumstances warrant. The burden of demonstrating the existence of mitigating circumstances shall be upon the State or local educational agency.(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), mitigating circumstances exist only when it would be unjust to compel the recovery of funds because the State or local educational agency—(A) actually and reasonably relied upon erroneous written guidance provided by the Department;(B) made an expenditure or engaged in a practice after—(i) the State or local educational agency submitted to the Secretary, in good faith, a written request for guidance with respect to the expenditure or practice at issue, and(ii) a Department official did not respond within 90 days of receipt by the Department of such request; or(C) actually and reasonably relied upon a judicial decree issued to the recipient.(3) A written request for guidance as described in paragraph (2) sent by certified mail (return receipt requested) shall be conclusive proof of receipt by the Department.(4) If the Secretary responds to a written request for guidance described in paragraph (2)(B) more than 90 days after its receipt, the State or local educational agency that submitted the request shall comply with the guidance received at the earliest practicable time.(5) In order to demonstrate the existence of the mitigating circumstances described in paragraph (2)(B), the State or local educational agency shall demonstrate that—(A) the written request for guidance accurately described the proposed expenditure or practice and included the facts necessary for a determination of its legality; and(B) the written request for guidance contained a certification by the chief legal officer of the State educational agency that such officer had examined the proposed expenditure or practice and believed the proposed expenditure or practice was permissible under then applicable State and Federal law; and(C) the State or local educational agency reasonably believed that the proposed expenditure or practice was permissible under then applicable State and Federal law.(6) The Secretary shall disseminate to State educational agencies responses to written requests for guidance, described in paragraph (5), that reflect significant interpretations of applicable law or policy.(c) Review of written requests for guidance on periodic basis

The Secretary shall periodically review the written requests for guidance submitted under this section to determine the need for new or supplementary regulatory or other guidance under applicable programs.

(Pub. L. 90–247, title IV, § 453, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title XII, § 1232, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2349; amended Pub. L. 100–297, title III, § 3501(a), Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 353.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–297 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to measure of recovery for provisions relating to withholdings. See section 1234d of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–297 effective 180 days after Apr. 28, 1988, but not applicable to recipients receiving written notice to return funds prior to that date, see section 3501(b) of Pub. L. 100–297, set out as a note under section 1234 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: Bennett v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., 470 U.S. 656 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bennett v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., 470 U.S. 656 (1985). · cites it 2× “, at 947 , quoting 20 U. S. C. §§1234b(a), 1234c(a). The statute and regulations concerning supplanting, the court maintained, were not “unambiguous.”
Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “The other place in which the term appears is in 20 U.S.C. § 1234b(c), a section of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Improvement Act.”
Ga. Dep't of Educ. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 883 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2018). “" 20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a)(1). Identifiable federal interests relevant here include serving only eligible beneficiaries, providing only authorized services or benefits, complying with expenditure requirements and conditions, preserving the integrity of application requirements, and…”
Dep't of Educ. v. Terrel Bell, 770 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1985). “8 Hawaii relies on 20 U.S.C. §§ 1234b(a), 1234c, and 2836 (1982) which authorize the Secretary to withhold funds or issue cease and desist orders when a recipient fails to comply substantially with the law.”
State of Wyoming v. Lamar Alexander, 971 F.2d 531 (10th Cir. 1992). “In 1988, Congress amended the general provisions controlling the DOE’s enforcement authority, mandating that recipients determined to have made unallowable expenditures "shall be required to return funds in an amount that is proportionate to the extent of harm its violation…”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Sec'y of Educ., 717 F.2d 943 (6th Cir. 1983). “§ 1234b(a) and § 1234c(a) (1978) (where the Commissioner is said to act upon the belief that a recipient of funds had “failed to comply substantially” with any requirement of law applicable to such funds). 9 . In 1974, Congress adopted a further amendment to Title I, 20 U.”
Missouri, Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 953 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1992). “DSS argues that because it has met the specific criterion set forth in (c)(5) above, it is entitled to relief from the Secretary’s order.”
Georgia Dep't of Educ. v. United State Dep't of Educ., No. 16-17648 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a)(1). Identifiable federal interests relevant here include serving only eligible beneficiaries, providing only authorized services or benefits, complying with expenditure requirements and conditions, preserving the integrity of application requirements, and…”
20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a): 3 cases
Bennett v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., 470 U.S. 656 (1985). “, at 947 , quoting 20 U. S. C. §§1234b(a), 1234c(a). The statute and regulations concerning supplanting, the court maintained, were not “unambiguous.”
Dep't of Educ. v. Terrel Bell, 770 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1985). “8 Hawaii relies on 20 U.S.C. §§ 1234b(a), 1234c, and 2836 (1982) which authorize the Secretary to withhold funds or issue cease and desist orders when a recipient fails to comply substantially with the law.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Sec'y of Educ., 717 F.2d 943 (6th Cir. 1983). “§ 1234b(a) and § 1234c(a) (1978) (where the Commissioner is said to act upon the belief that a recipient of funds had “failed to comply substantially” with any requirement of law applicable to such funds). 9 . In 1974, Congress adopted a further amendment to Title I, 20 U.”
20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a)(1): 2 cases
Ga. Dep't of Educ. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 883 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2018). “" 20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a)(1). Identifiable federal interests relevant here include serving only eligible beneficiaries, providing only authorized services or benefits, complying with expenditure requirements and conditions, preserving the integrity of application requirements, and…”
Georgia Dep't of Educ. v. United State Dep't of Educ., No. 16-17648 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018). “” 20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a)(1). Identifiable federal interests relevant here include serving only eligible beneficiaries, providing only authorized services or benefits, complying with expenditure requirements and conditions, preserving the integrity of application requirements, and…”
20 U.S.C. § 1234b(a)(l): 1 case
State of Wyoming v. Lamar Alexander, 971 F.2d 531 (10th Cir. 1992). “In 1988, Congress amended the general provisions controlling the DOE’s enforcement authority, mandating that recipients determined to have made unallowable expenditures "shall be required to return funds in an amount that is proportionate to the extent of harm its violation…”
20 U.S.C. § 1234b(c): 1 case
Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “The other place in which the term appears is in 20 U.S.C. § 1234b(c), a section of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Improvement Act.”
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.