 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CIR REGULATIONS DEFENDANTS MICHIGAN CAPACITY AMENDMENT CONGRESS IMMUNITY RELIEF DISPARATE IMPACT REGULATIONS COURT LAW RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION STATE OFFICIALS FEDERAL FUNDS MERIT AWARD BOARD MICHIGAN MERIT AWARD PARTE YOUNG SPENDING CLAUSE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SPENDING CLAUSE LEGISLATION UNITED STATES SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY SUPREME COURT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSTITUTION PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF VALID EXERCISE |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANITA WHITE; EUGENE SEALS; BIANCA KELLY;
JAMES SMITH; MICHELLE MILLER; MARIA
SALINAS; and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, MICHIGAN
STATE CONFERENCE, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 00-CV-72882
v. Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
JOHN ENGLER, Governor, State of Michigan, in his
official capacity; MICHIGAN MERIT AWARD BOARD;
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; MARK A. MURRAY,
State Treasurer, in his official capacity; MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; DOROTHY
BEARDMORE, President of the State Board of Education,
in her official capacity; STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION; ARTHUR E. ELLIS, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, in his official capacity; STATE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAINTIFFS' CONCISE STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
AMICUS BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS COURT PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIONS STATUTE MICHIGAN MERIT AWARD SCHOLARSHIP FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNITED STATES EXHAUST DISCRIMINATORY CIR DEFENDANTS FILING RESTORATION ACT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT FEDERAL FUNDS GROVE CITY FEDERAL FUNDING DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS DISPARATE IMPACT CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTION-WIDE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS INTERPRETATION HIGH SCHOOL SUPREME COURT TERMINATION |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANITA WHITE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN ENGLER, Governor, State of Michigan, in his
official capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 00-cv-72882
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
__________________________________________
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether a private cause of action exists under the Title VI
implementing regulations, and if so, whether a plaintiff must
first exhaust administrative processes under the statute and/or
regulations before filing such claim in federal court.
2. Whether the Michigan Merit Award Scholarship Program and the
Michigan Merit Award Board are operations of a "program or
activity" receiving Federal financial assistance, and thus, are
covered under Title VI and its implementing regulations.
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES
1. With regard to whether there is a private right of action under
the Title VI implementing regulations, and if so whether a
plaintiff must first exhaust the statute's administrative
procedures before filing such claim in court, the United States
relies principally on Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 463
U.S. 582 (1983); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985);
Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939 (3d Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935 (1985); the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (1988);
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979); and
Neighborhood Action Coalition v. City of Canton, 882 F.2d 1012
(6th Cir. 1989).
2. With regard to whether each institutional defendant is a "program
or activity" subject to Title VI and its implementing regulations
in regard to the Michigan Merit Scholarship Award Program, the
United States principally relies on Horner v. Kentucky High Sch.
Athletic Ass'n, 43 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 1994); Radcliff v. Landau,
883 F.2d 1481, clarified, 892 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1989); and Cohen
v. Brown Univ., 809 F. Supp. 978 (D.R.I. 1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d
888 (1st Cir. 1993).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
INTERVENTION BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AMENDMENT IMMUNITY COURT UNITED STATES CONGRESS ACT CIR DEFENDANTS CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY MICHIGAN MEMORANDUM SUITS AUTHORITY CAPACITY PLAINTIFFS LEGISLATION PARTE YOUNG BILL LANN LEE SPENDING CLAUSE VALID EXERCISE FEDERAL FUNDS EQUAL PROTECTION CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION MICHAEL WICKS ENACTED PURSUANT PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DISCRIMINATION PARTE YOUNG DOCTRINE SUPREME COURT |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANITA WHITE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN ENGLER, Governor, State of Michigan, in his
official capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 00-cv-72882
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
__________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
AS PROPOSED INTERVENOR
SAUL A. GREEN
United States Attorney
L. MICHAEL WICKS (P24457)
Assistant U.S. Attorney
211 W. Fort Street
Suite 2000
Detroit, MI 48226-3211
(313) 226-9100
BILL LANN LEE
Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL S. MAURER
DANIEL KOHRMAN (DC-394064)
KRISTAN S. MAYER (CA-194325)
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
601 D St., N.W. 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4092
ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PROPOSED INTERVENOR
DATED: OCTOBER 30, 2000
__________________________________________
CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 Validly Removes the States' Eleventh
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
