Lau v. Nichols Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

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

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits any program or activity that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. As recipients of federal funding, public schools are bound by this prohibition. Is it discriminatory to provide instruction primarily in English to students who don’t speak English? That’s the question in Lau versus Nichols.

California state law required public school classes to be taught in English. No student could graduate without demonstrating English proficiency.

In 1970, approximately 3,000 Chinese students in the San Francisco Unified School District didn’t speak English. Although roughly 1,000 of these students attended some supplemental classes to learn English, approximately 1800 weren’t taught English at all, despite that all classes were conducted in English.

13 non English speaking Chinese students, including Kinney Kinmon Lau, sued the officials responsible for operating the school district, including Alan Nichols, president of the San Francisco Board of Education. The students alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that the schools failed to provide them with an equal education by not providing instruction in a language they understood. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The district court ruled for Nichols. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[sarahkappelman]

Could you expand on the Supreme Court's ruling and its subsequent implications and interpretations?