LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY INC v STATE OF NEW YORK Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: CFFEIVSONY248615, CourtCode: SM, CourtName: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff: CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY INC, State: NY New York, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>CFFEIVSONY248615, Regulations, Discriminatory, York, Education, City, Federal Financial Assistance, Public School, United States, Students, Practices, Private, Act, Violation, Civil Rights, Federal Funds, Supreme Court, Regulations Promulgating, Summary Judgment, Minority Students, Discriminatory Effects, Allegations, Amended Complaint, Effects Standard, Education Funding Scheme, Commissioner, Amicus Curiae, National Origin , ContentID: 120248142

Case Documents
1   AMICUS BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 119968
19 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 19 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . AMICUS BRIEF

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISCRIMINATORY
COURT
YORK
DEFENDANTS
EDUCATION
CITY
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC SCHOOL
UNITED STATES
STUDENTS
PRACTICES
PRIVATE
ACT
VIOLATION
CIVIL RIGHTS
FEDERAL FUNDS
PLAINTIFFS
SUPREME COURT
REGULATIONS PROMULGATING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MINORITY STUDENTS
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS
ALLEGATIONS
AMENDED COMPLAINT
EFFECTS STANDARD
EDUCATION FUNDING SCHEME
COMMISSIONER
AMICUS CURIAE
NATIONAL ORIGIN
                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                             COUNTY OF NEW YORK

                 CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY, INC., et al.,
                                 Plaintiffs
                                  against
                       THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
                                Defendants.
                            Index No. 93/111070
                        Hon. Leland DeGrasse, J.S.C.

                BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES AS  AMICUS CURIAE
         IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'  MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

                       INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

     This case involves allegations that the State of New York is
     employing policies and practices that have a disparate adverse
     impact on New York City minority public school students -- who
     comprise over 70% of the state's minority students -- in violation
     of Title VI implementing regulations promulgated by the United
     States Department of Education ("DOE"), 34 C.F.R.

     § 100.3(b)(1), (2).

     Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits entities that
     receive federal financial assistance from discriminating on the
     basis of race, color, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.

     § 2000d. Pursuant to Section 602 of Title VI, DOE has promulgated
     enforcement regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(1), (2).

     Under Executive Order No. 12250, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (1980), the
     Attorney General has the responsibility to oversee and coordinate
     the implementation and enforcement responsibilities of all federal
     agencies under Title VI. The Title VI regulations or policy
     guidance promulgated by all federal agencies must be consistent
     with requirements prescribed by the Attorney General, and approval
     power over any federal agency's Title VI regulations has been
     delegated to the Attorney General under that Executive Order. As
     the federal government's chief litigator, the Department of Justice
     is also responsible for Title VI litigation for the United States,
     both as a plaintiff and a defendant.

     Accordingly, it is critical to the enforcement of Title VI and its
     implementing regulations that proper legal standards be applied in
     any Title VI litigation, whether in federal or state court. Because
     of the inherent limitations on administrative enforcement
SNIPPETS:
  • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
  • BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
  • This case involves allegations that the State of New York is employing policies and practices
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits entities that receive federal financial
  • Accordingly, it is critical to the enforcement of Title VI and its implementing regulations
  • Because of the inherent limitations on administrative enforcement mechanisms and on the
  • Plaintiffs filed a complaint, since amended, for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging
  • Amended Complaint, ¶ 33; Memorandum in Support of State and Commissioner
  • Because of the United States' important interest in the enforcement of Title VI, it files
  • The conclusion that private parties may enforce the disparate effects standard embodied in
  • the State and the Commissioner may be sued under Title VI for the discriminatory effects
  • Simply put, because the State receives federal funds for education, it is subject to Title VI
  • Relying on its earlier opinion in Guardians, the Court stated that federal agency regulations
  •    |