U.S. Code » Title 20 » Chapter CHAPTER 70— STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VIII— GENERAL PROVISIONS › Part Part F— Uniform Provisions › Subpart subpart 2— other provisions

20 U.S.C. § 7902

Prohibition regarding State aid

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

A State shall not take into consideration payments under this chapter (other than under subchapter VII) in determining the eligibility of any local educational agency in that State for State aid, or the amount of State aid, with respect to free public education of children.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2009 · leading case: Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009). · cites it 2× “” 20 U. S. C. §7902 . See 480 F. Supp. 2d, at 1166 (HB 2064’s funding mechanism is “absolutely forbidden” by §7902); 516 F.”
Flores Ex Rel. Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “The clearest violation of federal law discussed by the district court is the state’s violation of 20 U.S.C. § 7902 , which, covering all of the pertinent federal grant programs, provides that “[a] State shall not take into consideration payments under this chapter (other than…”
Flores v. Arizona, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Ariz. 2007). “01 determines the amount of funding available to districts and schools to fund the incremental costs of educating ELL students in a calculation that depends on the amount of ESEA funds that district or school has received. This is absolutely forbidden under federal law and this…”
Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000). “See 20 U.S.C. § 7902 ; 42 U.S.C. § 11701 . But these findings cannot substitute for language conferring judicially enforceable private rights.”
Rice v. Cayetano, 941 F. Supp. 1529 (D. Haw. 1996). “, the Native Hawaiian Education Act ( 20 U.S.C. § 7902 et seq.), the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act of 1992 ( 42 U.”
Flores v. Horne (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “[18] The clearest violation of federal law discussed by the district court is the state’s violation of 20 U.S.C. § 7902 , which, covering all of the pertinent federal grant programs, provides that “[a] State shall not take into consideration pay- ments under this chapter (other…”
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.