Adams v. Richardson

Historical Background

One of the greatest victories of the civil right movement of the 1960s was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior to the act, African Americans did not have a federal law that addressed the widespread discrimination throughout the country. The Civil Rights Act had a broad mandate: from voting rights and discrimination in public accommodations to public education. The act was written in several titles. Each title protected against discrimination in voting, public facilities, education, or employment. Title VI prohibited on the basis of race, color, or national origin anyone from being excluded, denied benefits, or subjected to discrimination in federally financially assisted programs or activities.

This meant that if a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action. Relief for violation of a person's constitutional rights became available through the administrative apparatus created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moreover, the federal government bore the financial burden of pursing these constitutional violations: an enforcement vehicle of significant proportions. Aggrieved individuals could file administrative complaints with the federal agency [Page 11]that provides funds to a recipient, or the individuals could file suit for appropriate relief in federal court.

From January 1969 until February 1970, the Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) found that 10 states had segregated higher-education systems that were deemed to be segregated. These states included Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia. HEW required each state to provide a desegregation plan. Of the 10 states, only 5 submitted plans, and none of the plans were found to be acceptable. The other 5 states totally disregarded the request from HEW.

By 1973, none of the 10 states was in compliance, nothing had been done by the states, and HEW had neither instituted an enforcement proceeding nor referred any of the cases to the Department of Justice. HEW claimed that they were in negotiations with all 10 states. A group of African Americans brought a lawsuit against the director of HEW to force him to follow the congressional mandate to enforce Title VI in these 10 states.

The district court agreed that the director was derelict of his duties and ordered HEW to (a) institute compliance procedures against the 10 states, (b) commence enforcement against 74 secondary and primary school districts found to either have reneged on previously approved desegregation plans, (c) commence enforcement proceedings against 42 districts previously deemed by HEW to have violated a Supreme Court ruling, (d) demand of 85 other secondary and primary school districts explanation of racial disproportion in apparent violation of the Supreme Court's ruling, (e) implement an enforcement program to secure Title VI in vocational and special education, (f) monitor all the school districts under court desegregation order, and (g) report to the African American groups that had enjoined the lawsuit about HEW's activities.

...