stating that under Ti- tie VI of the Civil Rights Act, which has similar enforcement language to FERPA, Congress regarded termination of funds as “ ‘a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,’ because ‘cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating racial discrimination or segregation.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- stating that under Ti- tie VI of the Civil Rights Act, which has similar enforcement language to FERPA, Congress regarded termination of funds as “ ‘a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,’ because ‘cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating racial discrimination or segregation.’ ”
- finding, in a suit based on the city police department's "last-hired, first-fired" policy, that discrimination "resulted from the disproportionate impact of the entry-level tests on racial minorities" but that "proof of discriminatory impact does not end the matter"
- explaining that monetary recovery under Title VI requires proof of intent so that the court can be sure that the recipient of the Title VI funds had knowledge of the violation and could have chosen to refuse the federal funds rather than face liability
- stating “The key question for present purposes is whether the decree requires the payment of funds or grants other relief, ‘not as a necessary consequence of compliance in the future with a substantive federal question determination, but as a form of compensation’ or other relief based on or flowing from violations at a prior time when the defendant Vas under no court-imposed obligation to conform to a different standard.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*612 Justice Rehnquist,
concurring in the judgment.
I join in Parts I, III, IV, and V of Justice White’s opinion and join in Part II of Justice Powell’s opinion. I therefore would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.