## Facts

- The San Francisco Unified School District operated public schools receiving federal financial assistance.
- Approximately 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the district did not speak English.
- About 1,000 of those students received supplemental English instruction, while roughly 1,800 received no language assistance.
- Instruction, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum were provided in English, without alternative instructional measures for the students who could not understand English.
- Non-English-speaking Chinese-ancestry students sued as a class, alleging they were denied equal educational opportunity under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).

## Issues

1. Whether a federally funded school district violates Title VI and implementing regulations by providing instruction only in English without adequate measures to allow non-English-speaking students of a particular national origin to participate meaningfully in the educational program.
2. Whether relief should be granted on statutory grounds without reaching the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the district’s failure to provide supplemental English instruction or other adequate instructional procedures to approximately 1,800 Chinese-ancestry students denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in public education.
- The Court found a violation of § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and valid regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) under § 602.
- The Court did not decide the Fourteenth Amendment question.
- The Court did not require a specific remedy (e.g., bilingual education), leaving the choice of corrective measures to educational authorities so long as meaningful access is provided.
- Several Justices concurred in the result; one concurrence emphasized the scale of exclusion and cautioned against reading the holding to require special programs for very small language-minority groups in all circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Title VI forbids exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, or discrimination under federally funded programs on the ground of race, color, or national origin.
- Implementing regulations may prohibit “criteria or methods of administration” that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
- Providing identical educational inputs (same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum) is insufficient where language barriers effectively bar students from meaningful participation in the program.
- A school district may be required to take affirmative steps to provide non-English-speaking students a meaningful opportunity to access the educational program, even absent proof of intentional discrimination.
- Courts may require compliance with Title VI and regulations without prescribing a particular instructional model, so long as the adopted measures provide meaningful access.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a federally funded public school system violates Title VI and implementing regulations when English-only instruction, without adequate language-assistance measures, effectively excludes non-English-speaking students of a particular national origin from meaningful participation in public education.


Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)