20 U.S.C. § 1651
Prohibition against assignment or transportation of students to overcome racial imbalance
No provision of this Act shall be construed to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: William CAULFIELD Et Al., Appellants, v. the Bd. OF Educ. OF the CITY OF NEW YORK Et Al., Appellees, 583 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1978).
William CAULFIELD Et Al., Appellants, v. the Bd. OF Educ. OF the CITY OF NEW YORK Et Al., Appellees, 583 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1978). “1974) ( 20 U.S.C. § 1651 , which is identical to 20 U.”
Hart v. Cmty. Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D. 21, 383 F. Supp. 699 (E.D.N.Y 1974). “(The Emergency School Aid Act); 20 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.; cf. Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, 372 F.”
Bd. of Educ. v. Dep't of Health, Educ., 396 F. Supp. 203 (S.D. Ohio 1975). “Plaintiffs also contend that this position is contrary to § 1618 of the ESAA as well as in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1651 (1972). See, e. g., doc.”
Keyes v. Cong. of Hispanic Educators, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995). “Assignment or Transportation of Students, 20 U.S.C. § 1651 , et seq. Contains prohibitions against school busing to overcome racial imbalance.”
Kelley v. Metro. Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Tenn., 372 F. Supp. 540 (M.D. Tenn. 1973). “Title VIII of the same legislation, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq., deals with the assignment and transportation of students, and, for purposes of this discussion, these two titles must be considered together.”
Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of Cincinnati v. Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 655 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D. Ohio 1987). “Specifically, we conclude that HEW violated 20 U.S.C. § 1651 which prohibited ESAA from being construed as requiring “the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.”
Doe v. League Sch. of Greater Boston Inc (D. Mass. 2018). “at 650 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1651 (a)). This is why, “in the context of student-on-student harassment, damages are available only where the behavior is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies its victims the equal access to education that Title IX is…”
DiPilato v. Commonwealth Ass'n of Sch. Administrators, 588 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2008). “In 1990, the Southern District of New York entered a permanent injunction under 20 U.S.C. § 1651 (the “All Writs Act”) against the filing of any suit seeking to litigate matters relating to the Consent Decree in any forum other than the Southern District of New York.”
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.