20 U.S.C. § 1715
District lines
In the formulation of remedies under section 1712 or 1713 of this title the lines drawn by a State, subdividing its territory into separate school districts, shall not be ignored or altered except where it is established that the lines were drawn for the purpose, and had the effect, of segregating children among public schools on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “§1705 (Assignment on Neighborhood Basis Not a Denial of Equal Educational Oppor- tunity) 20 U. S. C. §1715 (District Lines) 20 U.”
Evans v. Buchanan, 416 F. Supp. 328 (D. Del. 1976). “20 U.S.C. §§ 1715 & 1756 deal with the preservation of existing district lines, absent particular findings.”
Vorchheimer ex rel Vorchheimer v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 532 F.2d 880 (3rd Cir. 1976). “See § 216, 20 U.S.C. § 1715 . If Congress-was not talking about single-sex schools in the provisions quoted above, what was it talking about? A more blatant disregard of the plain meaning of ordinarily well understood words of our common language — “dual school systems”, “sex”,…”
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.