Lau v. Nichols
414 U.S. 563 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federally-funded school district's failure to provide English language instruction to a substantial number of non-English-speaking students, thereby denying them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program, constitutes discrimination based on national origin in violation of § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Facts:
- The San Francisco Unified School District received substantial federal financial assistance.
- Within the district, there were 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry who did not speak English.
- Of these students, approximately 1,800 received no supplemental courses or special instruction in the English language.
- The school district provided these non-English-speaking students with the same curriculum, facilities, textbooks, and teachers as all other students.
- California state law required that English be the basic language of instruction in all schools and that students demonstrate proficiency in English to receive a high school diploma.
Procedural Posture:
- Non-English-speaking Chinese students brought a class-action suit against officials of the San Francisco Unified School District in federal district court.
- The District Court denied relief.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The plaintiffs (petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 public school district's failure to provide English language instruction to non-English-speaking students of Chinese ancestry, which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program, violate § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes, the school district's failure to provide English language instruction violates § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Providing students with the same facilities, teachers, and curriculum does not constitute equal treatment when non-English-speaking students are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. The Court based its decision solely on the statute and its implementing regulations from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which explicitly state that school systems must rectify language deficiencies to ensure students are not denied the opportunity to obtain an education. These regulations prohibit practices that have the 'effect' of subjecting individuals to discrimination based on national origin, regardless of any discriminatory intent.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Concurring in the result. While it is not entirely clear that § 601 of the Civil Rights Act standing alone would render the school's inaction illegal, the interpretive guidelines published by HEW are controlling. These guidelines, which require districts to take 'affirmative steps' to rectify language deficiencies, are a reasonable and consistent administrative interpretation of the enabling legislation. As such, they are entitled to great weight and are a valid exercise of HEW's authority to implement Title VI.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Concurring in the result. The decision should be understood as being heavily influenced by the substantial number of students involved (approximately 1,800). This ruling may not be conclusive in a future case concerning only a very few students or a single child with a language deficiency. For this concurrence, the large number of affected students is 'at the heart of this case.'
Analysis:
Lau v. Nichols is a landmark decision that established the principle of 'disparate impact' under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Court held that discrimination can occur based on the effect of a policy, even without evidence of discriminatory intent. This ruling mandated that public schools take affirmative steps to overcome language barriers that prevent students from accessing the curriculum, profoundly influencing the development of bilingual education and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs nationwide. It clarified that equality in education means providing meaningful access, not just identical resources.
