20 U.S.C. § 1714

Transportation of students

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

(a) Limitation to school closest or next closest to place of residence

No court, department, or agency of the United States shall, pursuant to section 1713 of this title, order the implementation of a plan that would require the transportation of any student to a school other than the school closest or next closest to his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade level and type of education for such student.

(b) Health risks; impingement on educational process

No court, department, or agency of the United States shall require directly or indirectly the transportation of any student if such transportation poses a risk to the health of such student or constitutes a significant impingement on the educational process with respect to such student.

When a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a school system is desegregated, or that it meets the constitutional requirements, or that it is a unitary system, or that it has no vestiges of a dual system, and thereafter residential shifts in population occur which result in school population changes in any school within such a desegregated school system, no educational agency because of such shifts shall be required by any court, department, or agency of the United States to formulate, or implement any new desegregation plan, or modify or implement any modification of the court approved desegregation plan, which would require transportation of students to compensate wholly or in part for such shifts in school population so occurring.

(Pub. L. 93–380, title II, § 215, 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 10 cases, 1975–1999 · leading case: Brown v. Califano, 627 F.2d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brown v. Califano, 627 F.2d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “22 (1975) (Byrd amendment); 20 U.S.C. § 1714 (c) (1976) (Esch Amendment).”

United States v. Marion Cnty. Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “§ 215(a), 20 U.S.C. § 1714 (a). However, the act also provides 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…”

Evans v. Buchanan, 447 F. Supp. 982 (D. Del. 1978). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1714 (a), 1718. No showing has been made that required transportation poses a risk to the health of students or significantly impinges on the educational process of students.”

United States v. City of Yonkers, 880 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “Moreover, the State argues that the limitations on remedies imposed by the EEOA, which include limits on the use of involuntary busing, see 20 U.S.C. § 1714 , relate to the totality of a remedial scheme *241 ordered by a court, and thus would preclude resort to the EEOA in a…”

Mandel v. United States Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 411 F. Supp. 542 (D. Maryland 1976). “When HEW and the City negotiated, the standard generally employed was the “nearest-next-nearest” school standard contained in 20 U.S.C. § 1714 (a) (1970), Equal Educational Op *564 portunity Act of 1974.”

Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs., 57 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D.N.C. 1999). “20 U.S.C. § 1714 (1999) (prohibiting busing when it adversely affects students’ health and educational experience).”

Morgan v. Kerrigan, 401 F. Supp. 216 (D. Mass. 1975). “20 U.S.C. § 1714 (b). The School Department shall prepare a transportation plan and file it on or before July 7, 1975 for review by and approval of the court.”

Brown v. Califano, 455 F. Supp. 837 (D.D.C. 1978). “Codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1714 (a) (Supp. V 1975), it provides: No court, department, or agency of the United States shall .”

Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, Etc. v. State, 473 F. Supp. 996 (W.D. Wash. 1979). “6 Initiative 350 was patterned after previous federal legislative enactments, including the Esch Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1714 (a), the Byrd Amendment, P.”

Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington, 473 F. Supp. 996 (W.D. Wash. 1979). “6 Initiative 350 was patterned after previous federal legislative enactments, including the Esch Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1714 (a), the Byrd Amendment, P.”

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.