## Facts

- In the mid-1960s, California created several special-education programs for students with educational difficulties.
- The “educable mentally retarded” (EMR) program served students viewed as having intellectual delays that made them incapable of succeeding in regular instruction, but who could benefit from special education aimed at economic usefulness and social adjustment.
- Students with more severe intellectual delays were placed in a separate “trainable mentally retarded” (TMR) program.
- Other California programs targeted students with cultural or economic disadvantages or minor learning disorders and were aimed at helping students return to the regular classroom; the EMR program was not.
- California schools placed students into these programs largely based on intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.
- Black students scored, on average, about 15 points lower than white students on the IQ tests used for placement.
- The IQ tests were standardized and developed from an all-white population.
- Although the tests were adjusted to remove an observed scoring difference between boys and girls, no comparable adjustment was made to address the racial scoring gap.
- Using a single cutoff score, about 2% of white children fell below the EMR threshold, compared to about 15% of Black children.
- Placement decisions did not incorporate other information such as teacher input, behavioral functioning measures, or the student’s social and cultural background.
- Several Black elementary-school students, through guardians, sued the San Francisco Unified School District, the State Board of Public Instruction, and related officials, alleging that use of these IQ tests for EMR placement violated the Rehabilitation Act, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The district court found for the plaintiffs and enjoined defendants from using IQ tests to determine EMR placement for Black students.
- Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s use of standardized IQ tests—standardized on an all-white population and used as the primary placement tool—violated federal special-education and disability-discrimination statutes when used to place Black children in EMR classes.
2. Whether the racially disproportionate placement of Black students in EMR classes, based on IQ test scores, violated federal and state equal protection guarantees without proof of purposeful discrimination.
3. Whether the district court’s injunction restricting IQ-test-based EMR placement and requiring corrective measures was a proper exercise of equitable authority.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on federal statutory grounds supporting relief against the challenged testing-and-placement practices.
- The court reversed the district court’s equal protection rulings to the extent they rested on constitutional theories requiring proof of intentional discrimination.
- The court upheld the core injunctive relief barring use of the challenged IQ testing practice to place Black students in EMR classes and approved related remedial provisions as tied to the statutory violations.

## Legal Principles

- Federal education and disability statutes governing evaluation and placement require nondiscriminatory assessment procedures; placement cannot rest on a single test score when the instrument is not shown appropriate for the student population and placement purpose.
- Disparate racial impact from a federally funded program’s assessment and placement method can support statutory relief even when the record does not establish purposeful discrimination.
- Equal protection liability generally requires proof of discriminatory purpose; racial disproportionality, standing alone, is not enough.
- District courts may order forward-looking injunctive remedies reasonably directed to stopping proven statutory violations in public-school placement practices.

## Conclusion

Larry P. v. Riles held that California’s IQ-test-driven placement of Black students into EMR classes could be enjoined on federal statutory grounds because the tests, standardized on an all-white population and used as the controlling placement device, produced severe racial disproportionality and failed to meet applicable legal requirements for nondiscriminatory evaluation; the Ninth Circuit, however, declined to sustain constitutional equal protection liability absent proof of intentional discrimination while leaving the central remedial order in place.


Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969 (1984)