Adams v. Bennett
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
675 F. Supp. 668 (1987)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Kenneth Adams and students attending various educational institutions throughout several states (collectively, the students) (plaintiffs) filed suit against William Bennett (defendant), the United States secretary of education, alleging that the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) failed to properly enforce federal law aimed at ending discrimination in education and continued to grant funds in violation of various statutes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA). In the original case, filed 17 years prior, the district court had held that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and its director of the OCR had an affirmative duty to initiate enforcement proceedings against schools to ensure compliance with the CRA. In 1975 the students filed suit alleging delays in enforcement, and ultimately a consent order was negotiated, which was supplemented by additional orders and modifications. In 1982 the OCR moved to vacate the consent order on the basis of changes in law and fact. The district court denied the motion and entered a separate order directing the OCR to require several states to submit additional plans to desegregate. The OCR appealed the district court’s denial of its motion to vacate the consent order. A court of appeals remanded the case, raising issues of standing and mootness. The OCR then filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pratt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.