Grove City College v. Bell

465 U.S. 555, 104 S. Ct. 1211, 79 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1984)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Grove City College v. Bell

United States Supreme Court
465 U.S. 555, 104 S. Ct. 1211, 79 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1984)

Facts

Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. Title IX also directs federal agencies to promulgate regulations to ensure compliance with the statute and allows agencies to terminate funding for any noncompliant institutional program or part thereof. Grove City College (college) (plaintiff) was a private college that sought to avoid federal oversight by refusing to accept financial assistance from the federal government. The college did not participate in any direct institutional-aid programs, nor did it participate in any federal student-aid programs that would require the college to make decisions about a student’s eligibility for aid. However, the college accepted and enrolled numerous student recipients of federal Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (grants). The college declined to participate in the Regular Disbursement System (RDS), pursuant to which grant funds are sent directly to a school and which evaluates student eligibility and disburses grant funds. Instead, the college participated in the Alternative Disbursement System (ADS), pursuant to which the federal government disburses grant funds directly to students. The Department of Education requested that the college execute an Assurance of Compliance with Title IX. The college refused to execute the document and filed an action for declaratory judgment to ascertain, among other things, whether Title IX applied to the college and, if so, which of the college’s departments or programs was a recipient of federal financial assistance. The district court found that the college was not subject to Title IX. The court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Court first determined that the college had accepted indirect federal funding and was therefore subject to Title IX. The Court then considered which of the college’s programs or activities received federal assistance through the student grants.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Brennan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership