Lexplug logoLexplug

Adams v. Richardson

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
480 F.2d 1159, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 267 (1973)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal agency's consistent failure to take enforcement action under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against recipients of federal funds that operate segregated educational systems is not a matter of unreviewable agency discretion and constitutes a dereliction of duty subject to judicial review.


Facts:

  • The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) is the federal agency responsible for distributing federal financial assistance to public educational institutions across the United States.
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 directs federal agencies to ensure that no person is subjected to racial discrimination under any program receiving such federal financial assistance.
  • HEW identified numerous primary, secondary, and higher education systems that were operating on a segregated basis in violation of Title VI.
  • For instance, HEW formally concluded that ten states were operating segregated systems of higher education.
  • Despite identifying these non-compliant school systems and states, HEW continued to provide them with federal funds.
  • HEW's primary method of enforcement was to seek voluntary compliance, but it consistently failed to initiate formal enforcement proceedings, such as fund termination or referral to the Department of Justice, when voluntary compliance efforts were unsuccessful.
  • Certain black students, citizens, and taxpayers alleged that HEW's inaction allowed segregation to persist in federally funded educational institutions.

Procedural Posture:

  • Certain black students, citizens, and taxpayers (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (defendants).
  • The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel HEW to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • The District Court considered the case on cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding HEW had been derelict in its duty to enforce Title VI.
  • The District Court issued an injunction ordering HEW to commence enforcement proceedings against numerous specified school districts and state higher education systems.
  • HEW (appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment and injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a federal agency's widespread failure to enforce Title VI by initiating proceedings to terminate federal funds to segregated public educational institutions a matter of unreviewable agency discretion exempt from judicial intervention?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No, a federal agency's failure to enforce Title VI is not a matter of unreviewable discretion when it amounts to an abdication of its statutory duty. The court held that the agency discretion exception to judicial review is narrow and does not apply here because Title VI provides a clear legal standard and specific enforcement mechanisms, meaning there is 'law to apply.' The court distinguished this case from those involving prosecutorial discretion, noting that Title VI imposes an affirmative duty on HEW to act. More importantly, HEW is not merely failing to prosecute third-party violators; it is actively channeling federal funds to institutions operating in violation of federal law. While the statute allows HEW to first seek voluntary compliance, a 'consistent failure' to take further enforcement action when voluntary compliance is not achieved within a reasonable time constitutes a 'dereliction of duty reviewable in the courts.'



Analysis:

This decision significantly curtailed the 'agency discretion' defense for federal agencies tasked with enforcing civil rights statutes. It established that an agency's programmatic and widespread failure to enforce a clear congressional mandate is subject to judicial review and remedy. The ruling empowered civil rights litigants to hold federal agencies accountable not just for their actions, but for their inaction, ensuring that the government itself could not be complicit in discrimination by continuing to fund non-compliant entities. This case solidified the role of the judiciary in compelling executive branch agencies to fulfill their statutory enforcement obligations under Title VI.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Adams v. Richardson (1973) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Adams v. Richardson