Grove City College v. Bell
1984 U.S. LEXIS 158, 465 U.S. 555, 79 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The receipt of federal financial assistance by students for educational purposes at a private institution constitutes federal financial assistance to that institution under Title IX. However, Title IX's anti-discrimination provisions are program-specific, meaning they apply only to the particular program or activity that receives the funds, not to the entire institution.
Facts:
- Grove City College is a private, coeducational liberal arts college with a policy of refusing all forms of direct state and federal financial assistance to maintain its institutional autonomy.
- The College did not participate in federal student aid programs where it would have to administer the funds directly.
- A significant number of Grove City College students received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs) from the U.S. Department of Education.
- These students used the federal BEOG funds to pay for their tuition and other educational expenses at the College.
- The Department of Education determined that the College was a recipient of 'Federal financial assistance' because its students used BEOGs to pay tuition.
- The Department requested that Grove City College execute an Assurance of Compliance form, promising to adhere to Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination.
- Grove City College refused to sign the Assurance, arguing that it did not receive direct federal assistance and did not want to be subject to federal regulation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Education initiated an administrative proceeding to terminate federal student grants for Grove City College students.
- An Administrative Law Judge held that the College was obligated to comply with Title IX and ordered the termination of federal assistance until it did so.
- Grove City College and four students filed suit against the Department in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court concluded that the student grants constituted federal assistance to the College, but it ruled that the Department could not terminate the aid based on the College's refusal to sign the Assurance of Compliance.
- The Department of Education appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the student grants subjected the entire college to Title IX and that the Department could terminate assistance for failure to execute the Assurance.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private college's enrollment of students who use federal tuition grants subject the entire institution to the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, or only the specific program that receives the financial assistance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, enrolling students with federal grants does not subject the entire institution to Title IX; the statute is program-specific and only applies to the particular program or activity that receives the federal financial assistance. The Court held first that the BEOGs, though granted to students, constitute indirect federal financial assistance to Grove City College, thereby triggering Title IX coverage. The Court rejected the distinction between direct and indirect aid, noting that the economic effect is often indistinguishable and Congress intended Title IX's coverage to be broad. However, the Court found that Title IX's plain language limits its application to the specific 'education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.' In this case, the BEOGs are financial aid for students, so the 'program' that receives the assistance is the College's financial aid program. Therefore, only that program, not the entire institution, is subject to Title IX's requirements.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes, the holding is dictated by the language of Title IX, but the case represents an 'unedifying example of overzealousness' by the Federal Government. This opinion reluctantly joins the majority, emphasizing that Grove City College has an admirable record of non-discrimination and was forced into six years of litigation over a matter of principle. The government's insistence on litigating against a small, independent college that had not discriminated was an exercise of poor judgment, particularly when its ultimate position was narrowed to only cover the financial aid office.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
The Court correctly held that Grove City must execute the Assurance of Compliance, but it should not have decided which specific programs are covered. This opinion argues that Part III of the majority's opinion, which limits Title IX's application to the financial aid program, is an unnecessary advisory opinion. The only question before the Court was whether the College had to sign the Assurance, which requires compliance only 'to the extent applicable.' Since the Secretary was only seeking to regulate the financial aid program, there was no need for the Court to issue a broader ruling on the program-specific nature of the statute.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
Yes, enrolling students with federal grants subjects the entire institution to Title IX. While this opinion agrees that the college receives federal assistance, it strongly dissents from the majority's narrow, program-specific interpretation. The legislative history of Title IX and its model, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, show that Congress intended an expansive, institution-wide application when federal aid benefits the institution as a whole. Since BEOG funds go into the college's general operating budget and support all of its functions, the entire institution benefits and should be covered. The majority’s holding creates an absurd result where a college can receive the benefits of federal funding while still being free to discriminate in academic departments or athletic programs.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of Title IX by establishing the 'program-specific' interpretation of its enforcement. By holding that indirect federal aid only triggered compliance for the particular program receiving it (the financial aid office), the ruling insulated other parts of educational institutions, such as athletic departments and academic programs, from Title IX's anti-discrimination mandate. The decision was highly controversial and viewed as a major setback for civil rights enforcement. In response, Congress effectively overturned this ruling by passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which clarified that if any part of an institution receives federal funding, the entire institution is subject to the law.
