20 U.S.C. § 1702

Congressional findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Dual school systems as denial of equal protection; depletion of financial resources of local educational agencies; transportation of students; inadequacy of guidelinesThe Congress finds that—(1) the maintenance of dual school systems in which students are assigned to schools solely on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin denies to those students the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment;(2) for the purpose of abolishing dual school systems and eliminating the vestiges thereof, many local educational agencies have been required to reorganize their school systems, to reassign students, and to engage in the extensive transportation of students;(3) the implementation of desegregation plans that require extensive student transportation has, in many cases, required local educational agencies to expend large amounts of funds, thereby depleting their financial resources available for the maintenance or improvement of the quality of educational facilities and instruction provided;(4) transportation of students which creates serious risks to their health and safety, disrupts the educational process carried out with respect to such students, and impinges significantly on their educational opportunity, is excessive;(5) the risks and harms created by excessive transportation are particularly great for children enrolled in the first six grades; and(6) the guidelines provided by the courts for fashioning remedies to dismantle dual school systems have been, as the Supreme Court of the United States has said, “incomplete and imperfect,” and have not established, a clear, rational, and uniform standard for determining the extent to which a local educational agency is required to reassign and transport its students in order to eliminate the vestiges of a dual school system.(b) Necessity of Congress to specify appropriate remedies for elimination of dual school systems

For the foregoing reasons, it is necessary and proper that the Congress, pursuant to the powers granted to it by the Constitution of the United States, specify appropriate remedies for the elimination of the vestiges of dual school systems, except that the provisions of this chapter are not intended to modify or diminish the authority of the courts of the United States to enforce fully the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(Pub. L. 93–380, title II, § 203, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 514.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on and after sixtieth day after Aug. 21, 1974, see section 2(c) of Pub. L. 93–380, set out as a note under section 1221–1 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases, 1975–2020 · 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× “§1701 (a)(1) (Equal Educational Op- portunities; Congressional Declaration of Pol- icy)  20 U. S. C. §1702 (a)(1) (Equal Educational Op- portunities; Congressional Findings)  20 U.”

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). · cites it 2× “" 20 U. S. C. § 1702 (a) (3) (1976 ed.). (Emphasis added.”

Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009). · cites it 2× “Prior to City of Boerne, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the EEOA, which was enacted pursuant to §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see 20 U. S. C. §§1702 (a)(1), (b), validly abrogates the States’ sovereign immunity.”

Khadidja Issa v. Lancaster Sch. Dist., 847 F.3d 121 (3rd Cir. 2017). “2579 (2009) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1702 (a)(1), (b)), and entitles “all children enrolled in public schools” equal educational opportunity, 20 U.”

Bd. of Educ., Joliet Tp. v. Bd. of Educ., 897 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 20 U.S.C. §1702 (a)(l) (2000). The remedies specified by Congress as part of the EEOA are “not intended to modify or diminish the authority of the courts of the United States.”

United States of Am., Dedra Estell Overton, Intervenors-Appellants v. Texas Educ. Agency (Austin Indep. Sch. Dist.), 564 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “” 20 U.S.C. § 1702 (b). Second, the 1974 amendments do not support the wholesale exclusion of entire grades from a desegregation plan.”

Tallulah Morgan v. John J. Kerrigan, Boston Home & Sch. Ass'n, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, Kevin H. White, Etc., 530 F.2d 401 (1st Cir. 1976). “20 U.S.C. § 1702 (b), § 1714(a).” 401 F.Supp.”

Puerto Rico Higher Educ. Assistance Corp. v. Richard W. Riley, Sec'y of the Dep't of Educ., 10 F.3d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “20 U.S.C. § 1702 (e)(1). Congress’ definition thus did not distinguish between program-generated and other types of reserve fund assets.”

Nat'l Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 429 F. Supp. 583 (W.D. Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “20 U.S.C. § 1702 (b) (1975 Supp.). When a remedy is imposed it is not simply to achieve a racial balance in the schools, but to enforce Constitutional rights and correct Constitutional wrongs.”

United States v. Marion Cnty. Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1980). “§ 203(b), 20 U.S.C. § 1702 (b). As Congress and the courts have understood, the United States, in asking courts to compel defendants to perform contractual assurances of compliance with Title VI, is simply asking courts to enforce the requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth…”

Evans v. Buchanan, 416 F. Supp. 328 (D. Del. 1976). “As originally drawn by Rep. Esch of Michigan, the amendments had no such proviso.”

Evans v. Buchanan, 447 F. Supp. 982 (D. Del. 1978). “20 U.S.C. § 1702 (b); see Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

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.