U.S. Code » Title 20 » Chapter CHAPTER 39— EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES › Part Part 4— Remedies

20 U.S.C. § 1713

Priority of remedies

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar
In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of the laws, which may involve directly or indirectly the transportation of students, a court, department, or agency of the United States shall consider and make specific findings on the efficacy in correcting such denial of the following remedies and shall require implementation of the first of the remedies set out below, or of the first combination thereof which would remedy such denial:(a) assigning students to the schools closest to their places of residence which provide the appropriate grade level and type of education for such students, taking into account school capacities and natural physical barriers;(b) assigning students to the schools closest to their places of residence which provide the appropriate grade level and type of education for such students, taking into account only school capacities;(c) permitting students to transfer from a school in which a majority of the students are of their race, color, or national origin to a school in which a minority of the students are of their race, color, or national origin;(d) the creation or revision of attendance zones or grade structures without requiring transportation beyond that described in section 1714 of this title;(e) the construction of new schools or the closing of inferior schools;(f) the construction or establishment of magnet schools; or(g) the development and implementation of any other plan which is educationally sound and administratively feasible, subject to the provisions of sections 1714 and 1715 of this title.(Pub. L. 93–380, title II, § 214, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 517.)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 14 cases, 1975–2019 · leading case: 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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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). · cites it 3× “20 U.S.C. § 1713 (a), (b), § 1714. Revision of attendance zones and grade structures, construction of new schools and the closing of old schools, a controlled transfer policy with limited exceptions and the creation of magnet schools have been used in the formulation of the plan…”
Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High Sch., 618 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “The inference that Congress was focused on relief other than damages is strengthened by § 1713, which directs a court to consider the efficacy of several equitable remedies “in correcting” a denial of equal educational opportunity.”
Morgan v. Kerrigan, 401 F. Supp. 216 (D. Mass. 1975). · cites it 3× “This use of specialized programs originated in this case with proposals in the plan submitted by the defendant school committee, as strengthened and clarified by the masters.”
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× “In 20 U.S.C. § 1713 , Congress has declared a priority of remedies for segregation.”
Evans v. Buchanan, 416 F. Supp. 328 (D. Del. 1976). “, 20 U.S.C. § 1713 ; and Tr. at 2492-96, 2504-06.”
United States v. Hinds Cnty. Sch. Bd., United States of Am. v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 560 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1977). “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1713 , 1755.”) Amite County contends that the test we set forth in United States v.”
United States v. State of Tex., 523 F. Supp. 703 (E.D. Tex. 1981). “The decree, defendants assert, therefore violates 20 U.S.C. § 1713 (g), which requires that any plan to remedy a denial of Equal Protection or equal educational opportunity be "educationally sound and administratively feasible".”
United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 984 F. Supp. 687 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “We set forth in the margin the text of 20 U.S.C. § 1713 3 which provides that in adopt *692 ing any remedy pursuant to the EEOA which may involve directly or indirectly the transportation of students, a court shall consider and make specific findings on the efficacy in…”
Bradley v. Milliken, 402 F. Supp. 1096 (E.D. Mich. 1975). “93-380, § 214(f), 20 U.S.C. § 1713 (f), and as strengthened by the court’s guidelines will be sufficiently attractive to serve the dual purpose of providing quality education and voluntary desegregation.”
United States v. Texas, 523 F. Supp. 703 (E.D. Tex. 1981). “The decree, defendants assert, therefore violates 20 U.S.C. § 1713 (g), which requires that any plan to remedy a denial of Equal Protection or equal educational opportunity be “educationally sound and administratively feasible”.”
United States v. Texas Educ. Agency, 532 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1976). “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1713 , 1755. In the case before us, however, we find that crosstown busing is the only desegregation method that will work.”
United States v. City of Yonkers, 888 F. Supp. 591 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “Similarly, section 256 of the EEOA provides that no court may order the implementation of any plan to remedy a finding of de jure segregation which involves the transportation of students unless it first finds that “all alternative remedies are inadequate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1755 .”
Show all 14 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.