# data[].attributes.body
As a future school principal, it's essential to uphold and enforce Equal Opportunity laws in education to ensure that all students have fair and equitable access to educational opportunities regardless of their race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or other protected characteristics. By promoting diversity and equity in education, we can create a more just and equitable society where every student has the opportunity to reach their full potential, which is why I chose this topic to discuss.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal Agency: The Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal Agency: The Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

# data[].attributes.body
At the federal level, the primary agency responsible for overseeing Equal Opportunity laws in education is the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). "OCR' s mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence through vigorous enforcement of civil rights in our nation's schools," (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

The OCR enforces several federal laws that prohibit discrimination in education, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The ORC investigates complaints of discrimination, conducts compliance reviews, and promotes initiatives to ensure equal access to education for all students.

# data[].attributes.headline
State Agency: Texas Education Agency (TEA)

# data[].attributes.subject
State Agency: Texas Education Agency (TEA)

# data[].attributes.body
At the state level, departments of education are typically responsible for enforcing Equal Opportunity laws within their respective states. For Texas, that agency is the Texas Education Agency, or TEA. They work to ensure that schools and educational institutions within Texas comply with both federal and state laws regarding Equal Opportunity and may provide guidance, training, and resources to support schools in their efforts to promote equity.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. Department of Education states, "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance," (U.S Department of Education, 2023). Title VI states that, "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1964).

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 guarantees equal rights for all individuals regardless of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin and specifically states, "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services," (Tex. Const. art. 3 § 1).

# data[].attributes.body
Recipients of federal funds must ensure that their programs and activities are conducted without regard to race, color, or national origin.

Educational institutions must ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program, including athletics.

Recipients of federal funds must provide equal access to programs for individuals with disabilities and make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility.

Students and employees are protected from discrimination in all aspects of public education, including admissions, employment, and access to programs and services.

# data[].attributes.body
A federal statute that pertains to Equal Opportunity is Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX states, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance," (Educ. Amend. 1972). Educational institutions must provide equal opportunities and resources for both male and female students. It covers issues such as sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, and equal access to educational opportunities, including sports programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-1328
Revised August 2021

Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Scope of Title IX
Title IX applies to schools, local and state educational agencies, and other institutions that receive federal financial assistance from the Department. These recipients include approximately 17,600 local school districts, over 5,000 postsecondary institutions, and charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, and museums. Also included are vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies of 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the United States.

A recipient institution that receives Department funds must operate its education program or activity in a nondiscriminatory manner free of discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key issue areas in which recipients have Title IX obligations are: recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; athletics; sex-based harassment, which encompasses sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence; treatment of pregnant and parenting students; treatment of LGBTQI+ students; discipline; single-sex education; and employment. Also, no recipient or other person may intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by Title IX or its implementing regulations, or because the individual has made a report or complaint, testified, assisted, or participated or refused to participate in a proceeding under Title IX. For a recipient to retaliate in any way is considered a violation of Title IX. The Department's Title IX regulations (Volume 34, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 106) provide additional information about the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title IX.

OCR's Enforcement of Title IX

OCR vigorously enforces Title IX to ensure that institutions that receive federal financial assistance from the Department comply with the law. OCR evaluates, investigates, and resolves complaints alleging sex discrimination. OCR also conducts proactive investigations, through directed investigations or compliance reviews, to examine potential systemic violations based on sources of information other than complaints.

In addition to its enforcement activities, OCR provides information and guidance to schools, universities and other educational institutions and agencies to assist them in voluntarily complying with the law.

To learn more about filing a complaint with OCR, please visit
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html. For assistance related to Title IX or other civil rights laws, please contact OCR at OCR@ed.gov or 800-421-3481, TDD 800-877-8339.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille or large print. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0818 or via e-mail at alternateformatcenter@ed.gov. If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800- 872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339), email us at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov, or write to U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20202.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities which receive Federal financial assistance.

# data[].attributes.body
The OCR, or the Office for Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Education, administers and enforces various federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in education. The OCR issues regulations and guidance documents to clarify the legal requirements under Title IX and other civil rights laws. The U.S. Department of Education states, "(The OCR) serves student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems," (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

Educational institutions must adhere to the regulations and guidance issued by the OCR to ensure compliance with Title IX and other Equal Opportunity laws, including implementing policies to prevent discrimination, and addressing complaints in a timely and effective manner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On April 6, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education released for public comment its proposed amendment to the Department's regulation implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The proposed amendment aims to advance Title IX's longstanding goal of ensuring equal opportunity based on sex in athletics and would provide much needed clarity for students, parents, coaches, and schools. The Department's notice of proposed rulemaking will be open for public comment until May 15, 2023.
Disability Discrimination (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act)
On May 6, 2022, OCR announced that it intends to propose amendments to the Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R. pt. 104, implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As part of this process, OCR is seeking written suggestions from the public about how best to improve the current regulations. It would be appreciated if longer and more detailed comments were submitted by the end of June 2022, but all comments submitted prior to the issuance of any notice of proposed rulemaking will be reviewed. Instructions and cautions are below.
INSTRUCTIONS:

Send your comments to Section504@ed.gov.

If you are submitting attachments with your email, the Department strongly encourages you to submit attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), the Department strongly encourages you to convert the PDF to "print-to-PDF" format, or to use some other commonly used searchable text format. Please do not submit the PDF in a scanned format. Using a print-to-PDF format allows the Department to electronically search and copy certain portions of your submissions and will make them more accessible when made available for public viewing.

If you do not have internet access or electronic submission is not possible, you may mail written comments to: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Bldg., 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-1100.

CAUTIONS:

Be careful to include only information, including personal information, that you are comfortable making publicly available. The Department may make all emails and attachments received at Section504@ed.gov available for public viewing without redactions.

Emails received at Section504@ed.gov will not be treated as complaints. If you wish to file a complaint alleging that an educational institution engaged in discrimination on the basis of disability, please follow the complaint-filing instructions available on our website.

Do not submit questions or inquiries to Section504@ed.gov. Receipt of your email will be acknowledged, but questions and inquiries will not be responded to. Questions should be directed to OCR@ed.gov.

Do not submit comments focused on OCR's handling of particular pending complaints filed with OCR to Section504@ed.gov. They will not be individually responded to. Such comments should be directed to the appropriate OCR regional office responsible for the complaint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
civil rights; racial discrimination; national origin discrimination; disability discrimination; sex discrimination; age discrimination;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Regulations enforced by the Office for Civil Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Educational institutions must provide equal opportunities and resources for both male and female students.

They must also ensure fair treatments in admissions, hiring, athletics, and address instances of sexual harassment promptly and effectively.

Educational institutions must adhere to the regulations and guidance issued by the OCR to ensure compliance with Title IX and other Equal Opportunity laws.

# data[].attributes.body
This landmark U.S. Supreme Court case declared state laws establishing public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. It overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The legal principle Brown v. Board of Education (1954) established was that segregation in public education based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. Supreme Court

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953 Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. [ Footnote 1]

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance,

they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, . Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. [ Footnote 2] Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court. [ Footnote 3]

Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. [ Footnote 4] In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported

by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. [ Footnote 5] The doctrine of

"separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. [ Footnote 6] American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. [ Footnote 7] In Cumming v. County Board of Education, , and Gong Lum v. Rice, , the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. [ Footnote 8] In more recent cases, all on the graduate school

level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, ; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, ; Sweatt v. Painter, ; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, . In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. [ Footnote 9] Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout

the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."

Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. [ Footnote 10]"

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. [ Footnote 11] Any language

in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [ Footnote 12]

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term. [ Footnote 13] The Attorney General

of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954. [ Footnote 14]
It is so ordered.
* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.

In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kan.Gen.Stat. § 72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis. The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. S.C.Const., Art. XI, § 7; S.C.Code § 5377 (1942). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found that the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools, and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 98 F. Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views on a report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. . On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

In the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs are Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va.Const., § 140; Va.Code § 22-221 (1950). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to "proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove" the inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

In the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Del.Const., Art. X, § 2; Del.Rev.Code § 2631 (1935). The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. 87 A.2d 862. The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children ( see note 10 infra), but did not rest his decision on that ground. Id. at 865. The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware, which intimated, however, that the defendants might be able to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. 91 A.2d 137, 152. The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U.S. 891. The plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition.

345 U.S. 972. The Attorney General of the United States participated both Terms as amicus curiae.

For a general study of the development of public education prior to the Amendment, see Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (1953), Pts. I, II; Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (1934 ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment are described in Butts and Cremin, supra, at 269-275; Cubberley, supra, at 288-339, 408-431; Knight, Public Education in the South (1922), cc. VIII, IX. See also H. Ex.Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871). Although the demand for free public schools followed substantially the same pattern in both the North and the South, the development in the South did not begin to gain momentum until about 1850, some twenty years after that in the North. The reasons for the somewhat slower development in the South ( e.g., the rural character of the South and the different regional attitudes toward state assistance) are well explained in Cubberley, supra, at 408-423. In the country as a whole, but particularly in the South, the War virtually stopped all progress in public education. Id. at 427-428. The low status of Negro education in all sections of the country, both before and immediately after the War, is described in Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools (1941), 112-132, 175-195. Compulsory school attendance laws were not generally adopted until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was not until 1918 that such laws were in force in all the states. Cubberley, supra, at 563-565.

16 Wall. 36, 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, , 307-308 (1880):

"It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race -- the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored -- exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race."

See also Virginia v. Rives, , 318 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, , 344-345 (1880).

The doctrine apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass.198, 206 (1850), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a state constitutional guarantee of equality. Segregation in Boston public schools was eliminated in 1855. Mass.Acts 1855, c. 256. But elsewhere in the North, segregation in public education has persisted in some communities until recent years. It is apparent that such segregation has long been a nationwide problem, not merely one of sectional concern.

See also Berea College v. Kentucky, (1908).

In the Cummin case, Negro taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the defendant school board to discontinue the operation of a high school for white children until the board resumed operation of a high school for Negro children. Similarly, in the Gong Lum case, the plaintiff, a child of Chinese descent, contended only that state authorities had misapplied the doctrine by classifying him with Negro children and requiring him to attend a Negro school.

In the Kansas case, the court below found substantial equality as to all such factors. 98 F. Supp. 797, 798. In the South Carolina case, the court below found that the defendants were proceeding "promptly and in good faith to comply with the court's decree." 103 F. Supp. 920, 921. In the Virginia case, the court below noted that the equalization program was already "afoot and progressing" ( 103 F. Supp. 337, 341); since then, we have been advised, in the Virginia Attorney General's brief on reargument, that the program has now been completed. In the Delaware case, the court below similarly noted that the state's equalization program was well under way. 91 A.2d 137, 149.

[ Footnote 10]

A similar finding was made in the Delaware case:

"I conclude from the testimony that, in our Delaware society, State-imposed segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, as a class, receiving educational opportunities which are substantially inferior to those available to white children otherwise similarly situated."

87 A.2d 862, 865.

[ Footnote 11]

K.B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Mid-century White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J.Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int.J.Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., 1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).

[ Footnote 12]

See Bolling v. Sharpe, post, p. 497, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[ Footnote 13]

"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment"

"( a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or"

"( b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?"

"5. On the assumption on which questions 4( a) and ( b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4( b),"

"( a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these cases;"

"( b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach;"

"( c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees;"

"( d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in these cases and, if so, what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?"

[ Footnote 14]

See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July 1, 1954).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from segregating public school students on the basis of race. This marked a reversal of the "separate but equal" doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson that had permitted separate schools for white and colored children provided that the facilities were equal.

# data[].attributes.body
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the unjustified segregations of persons with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA states, "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability..." (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990). The legal principle that came from this case is that unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the ADA, and states must provide community-based services when feasible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus OLMSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ET AL. V. L. C., BY ZIMRING, GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND NEXT FRIEND, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-536. Argued April 21, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999

In the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. §§ 12101(a)(2), (5). Title II of the ADA, which proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, "by reason of such disability," be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, a public entity's services, programs, or activities. § 12132. Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing Title II's discrimination proscription. See § 12134(a). One such regulation, known as the "integration regulation," requires a "public entity [to] administer ... programs ... in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 CFR § 35.130(d). A further prescription, here called the "reasonable-modifications regulation," requires public entities to "make reasonable modifications" to avoid "discrimination on the basis of disability," but does not require measures that would "fundamentally alter" the nature of the entity's programs. § 35.130(b)(7). Respondents L. C. and E. W. are mentally retarded women; L. C. has also been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and E. W., with a personality disorder. Both women were voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta (GRH), where they were confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. Although their treatment professionals eventually concluded that each of the women could be cared for appropriately in a community-based program, the women remained institutionalized at GRH. Seeking placement in community care, L. C. filed this suit against petitioner state officials (collectively, the State) under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and Title II. She alleged that the State violated Title II in failing to place her in a community-based program once her treating professionals determined that such placement was appropriate. E. W. intervened, stating an identical claim. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the women, ordering their 582 Syllabus placement in an appropriate community-based treatment program. The court rejected the State's argument that inadequate funding, not discrimination against L. C. and E. W. "by reason of [their] disabilit[ies]," accounted for their retention at GRH. Under Title II, the court concluded, unnecessary institutional segregation constitutes discrimination per se, which cannot be justified by a lack of funding. The court also rejected the State's defense that requiring immediate transfers in such cases would "fundamentally alter" the State's programs. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, but remanded for reassessment of the State's cost-based defense. The District Court had left virtually no room for such a defense. The appeals court read the statute and regulations to allow the defense, but only in tightly limited circumstances. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit instructed the District Court to consider, as a key factor, whether the additional cost for treatment of L. C. and E. W. in community-based care would be unreasonable given the demands of the State's mental health budget. Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded. 138 F.3d 893, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-A, concluding that, under Title II of the ADA, States are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. Pp. 596-603. (a) The integration and reasonable-modifications regulations issued by the Attorney General rest on two key determinations: (1) Unjustified placement or retention of persons in institutions severely limits their exposure to the outside community, and therefore constitutes a form of discrimination based on disability prohibited by Title II, and (2) qualifying their obligation to avoid unjustified isolation of individuals with disabilities, States can resist modifications that would fundamentally alter the nature of their services and programs. The Eleventh Circuit essentially upheld the Attorney General's construction of the ADA. This Court affirms the Court of Appeals decision in substantial part. Pp. 596-597. (b) Undue institutionalization qualifies as discrimination "by reason of ... disability." The Department of Justice has consistently advocated that it does. Because the Department is the agency directed 583 by Congress to issue Title II regulations, its views warrant respect. This Court need not inquire whether the degree of deference described in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844, is in order; the well-reasoned views of the agencies implementing a statute constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. E. g., Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 642. According to the State, L. C. and E. W. encountered no discrimination "by reason of" their disabilities because they were not denied community placement on account of those disabilities, nor were they subjected to "discrimination," for they identified no comparison class of similarly situated individuals given preferential treatment. In rejecting these positions, the Court recognizes that Congress had a more comprehensive view of the concept of discrimination advanced in the ADA. The ADA stepped up earlier efforts in the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to secure opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to enjoy the benefits of community living. The ADA both requires all public entities to refrain from discrimination, see § 12132, and specifically identifies unjustified "segregation" of persons with disabilities as a "for[m] of discrimination," see §§ 12101(a)(2), 12101(a)(5). The identification of unjustified segregation as discrimination reflects two evident judgments: Institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life, cf., e. g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755; and institutional confinement severely diminishes individuals' everyday life activities. Dissimilar treatment correspondingly exists in this key respect: In order to receive needed medical services, persons with mental disabilities must, because of those disabilities, relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice. The State correctly uses the past tense to frame its argument that, despite Congress' ADA findings, the Medicaid statute "reflected" a congressional policy preference for institutional treatment over treatment in the community. Since 1981, Medicaid has in fact provided funding for state-run home and community-based care through a waiver program. This Court emphasizes that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings. Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it. In this case, however, it is not genuinely disputed that L. C. and E. W. are individuals "quali- 584 Syllabus fied" for noninstitutional care: The State's own professionals determined that community-based treatment would be appropriate for L. C. and JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE BREYER, concluded in Part III-B that the State's responsibility, once it provides community-based treatment to qualified persons with disabilities, is not boundless. The reasonable-modifications regulation speaks of "reasonable modifications" to avoid discrimination, and allows States to resist modifications that entail a "fundamenta[l] alter[ation]" of the States' services and programs. If, as the Eleventh Circuit indicated, the expense entailed in placing one or two people in a community-based treatment program is properly measured for reasonableness against the State's entire mental health budget, it is unlikely that a State, relying on the fundamental-alteration defense, could ever prevail. Sensibly construed, the fundamental-alteration component of the reasonable-modifications regulation would allow the State to show that, in the allocation of available resources, immediate relief for the plaintiffs would be inequitable, given the responsibility the State has undertaken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with mental disabilities. The ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions, placing patients in need of close care at risk. Nor is it the ADA's mission to drive States to move institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting, such as a homeless shelter, a placement the State proposed, then retracted, for E. W. Some individuals, like L. C. and E. W. in prior years, may need institutional care from time to time to stabilize acute psychiatric symptoms. For others, no placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate. To maintain a range of facilities and to administer services with an even hand, the State must have more leeway than the courts below understood the fundamental-alteration defense to allow. If, for example, the State were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State's endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated, the reasonable-modifications standard would be met. In such circumstances, a court would have no warrant effectively to order displacement of persons at the top of the community-based treatment waiting list by individuals lower down who commenced civil actions. The case is remanded for further consideration of the appropriate relief, given the range of the State's facilities for the care of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and its obligation to administer services with an even hand. Pp. 603-606. 585 JUSTICE STEVENS would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but because there are not five votes for that disposition, joined the Court's judgment and Parts I, II, and III-A of its opinion. Pp.607-608. JUSTICE KENNEDY concluded that the case must be remanded for a determination of the questions the Court poses and for a determination whether respondents can show a violation of 42 U. S. C. § 12132's ban on discrimination based on the summary judgment materials on file or any further pleadings and materials properly allowed. On the ordinary interpretation and meaning of the term, one who alleges discrimination must show that she received differential treatment vis-a-vis members of a different group on the basis of a statutorily described characteristic. Thus, respondents could demonstrate discrimination by showing that Georgia (i) provides treatment to individuals suffering from medical problems of comparable seriousness, (ii) as a general matter, does so in the most integrated setting appropriate for the treatment of those problems (taking medical and other practical considerations into account), but (iii) without adequate justification, fails to do so for a group of mentally disabled persons (treating them instead in separate, locked institutional facilities). This inquiry would not be simple. Comparisons of different medical conditions and the corresponding treatment regimens might be difficult, as would be assessments of the degree of integration of various settings in which medical treatment is offered. Thus far, respondents have identified no class of similarly situated individuals, let alone shown them to have been given preferential treatment. Without additional information, the Court cannot address the issue in the way the statute demands. As a consequence, the partial summary judgment granted respondents ought not to be sustained. In addition, it was error in the earlier proceedings to restrict the relevance and force of the State's evidence regarding the comparative costs of treatment. The State is entitled to wide discretion in adopting its own systems of cost analysis, and, if it chooses, to allocate health care resources based on fixed and overhead costs for whole institutions and programs. The lower courts should determine in the first instance whether a statutory violation is sufficiently alleged and supported in respondents' summary judgment materials and, if not, whether they should be given leave to replead and to introduce evidence and argument along the lines suggested. Pp. 611-615. GINSBURG, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III -A, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and an opin- 586 ion with respect to Part III-B, in which O'CONNOR, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 607. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Part I, post, p. 608. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. 615. Beverly Patricia Downing, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Attorney General, Jefferson James Davis, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Jeffrey s. Sutton. Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Steven D. Caley, Susan C. Jamieson, and David A. Webster. Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Underwood, Jessica Dunsay Silver, and Gregory B. Friel.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Nevada et al. by Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada, and Anne B. Cathcart, Special Assistant Attorney General, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, and Robert E. Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas, Andy Taylor, First Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Eads, Deputy Attorney General, and Gregory S. Coleman, Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Ken L. Salazar of Colorado, Jeffrey A. M odisett of Indiana, Margery S. Bronster of Hawaii, Richard P. I eyoub of Louisiana, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Charles M. Condon of South Carolina, Paul G. Summers of Tennessee, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, and Gay Woodhouse of Wyoming; and for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association on Mental Retardation et al. by Alan M. Wiseman, Timothy K. Armstrong, and Ira A. Burnim; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Laurie Webb Daniel and Steven R. Shapiro; for the American 587 JUSTICE GINSBURG announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-A, and an opinion with respect to Part III-B, in which JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE BREYER join. This case concerns the proper construction of the antidiscrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U. S. C. § 12132. Specifically, we confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes. Such action is in order when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. In so ruling, we affirm the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in substantial part. We remand the case, however, for further consideration of the appropriate relief, given the range of facilities the State maintains for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and its obligation to administer services with an even hand. Psychiatric Association et al. by Richard G. Taranto; for 58 Former State Commissioners and Directors of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities et al. by Neil V. McKittrick; for the National Council on Disability by Robert L. Burgdorf, Jr.; for the National Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse et al. by Loralyn McKinley; for Dick Thornburgh et al. by Mr. Thornburgh, pro se, James E. Day, and David R. Fine; for People First of Georgia et al. by Thomas K. Gilhool; and for the Voice of the Retarded et al. by William J. Burke and Tamie Hopp. Stephen F. Gold filed a brief for ADAPT et al. as amici curiae. 588 I This case, as it comes to us, presents no constitutional question. The complaints filed by plaintiffs-respondents L. C. and E. W. did include such an issue; L. C. and E. W. alleged that defendants-petitioners, Georgia health care officials, failed to afford them minimally adequate care and freedom from undue restraint, in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Complaint ~~ 87-91; Intervenor's Complaint ~~ 30-34. But neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals reached those Fourteenth Amendment claims. See Civ. No. 1:95-cv-1210-MHS (ND Ga., Mar. 26,1997), pp. 5-6, 11-13, App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a-35a, 40a-41a; 138 F.3d 893, 895, and n. 3 (CAll 1998). Instead, the courts below resolved the case solely on statutory grounds. Our review is similarly confined. Cf. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 450 (1985) (Texas city's requirement of special use permit for operation of group home for mentally retarded, when other care and multiple-dwelling facilities were freely permitted, lacked rational basis and therefore violated Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). Mindful that it is a statute we are construing, we set out first the legislative and regulatory prescriptions on which the case turns. In the opening provisions of the ADA, Congress stated findings applicable to the statute in all its parts. Most relevant to this case, Congress determined that

"(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;

"(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as ... institutionalization ... ;

"(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, ... failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, ... [and] segregation .... " 42 U. S. C. §§ 12101(a)(2), (3), (5).1

Congress then set forth prohibitions against discrimination in employment (Title I, §§ 12111-12117), public services furnished by governmental entities (Title II, §§ 12131-12165), and public accommodations provided by private entities (Title III, §§ 12181-12189). The statute as a whole is intended "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." § 12101(b)(1).2 This case concerns Title II, the public services portion of the ADA.3 The provision of Title II centrally at issue reads:

"Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

1 The ADA, enacted in 1990, is the Federal Government's most recent and extensive endeavor to address discrimination against persons with disabilities. Earlier legislative efforts included the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 355, 29 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. (1976 ed.), and the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 89 Stat. 486, 42 U. S. C. § 6001 et seq. (1976 ed.), enacted in 1975. In the ADA, Congress for the first time referred expressly to "segregation" of persons with disabilities as a "for[m] of discrimination," and to discrimination that persists in the area of "institutionalization." §§ 12101(a)(2), (3), (5). 2 The ADA defines "disability," "with respect to an individual," as "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; "(B) a record of such an impairment; or"(C) being regarded as having such an impairment." § 12102(2). There is no dispute that L. C. and E. W. are disabled within the meaning of the ADA. 3 In addition to the provisions set out in Part A governing public services generally, see §§ 12131-12134, Title II contains in Part B a host of provisions governing public transportation services, see §§ 12141-12165. 590

disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." § 201, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 12132.

Title II's definition section states that "public entity" includes "any State or local government," and "any department, agency, [or] special purpose district." §§ 12131(1)(A), (B). The same section defines "qualified individual with a disability" as

"an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." § 12131(2).

On redress for violations of § 12132's discrimination prohibition, Congress referred to remedies available under § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat. 2982, 29 U. S. C. § 794a. See § 203, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 12133 ("The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in [§ 505 of the Rehabilitation Act] shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.").4 4 Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act incorporates the remedies, rights, and procedures set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2). Title VI, in turn, directs each federal department authorized to extend financial assistance to any department or agency of a State to issue rules and regulations consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing financial assistance. See 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-1. Compliance with such requirements may be effected by the termination or denial of federal funds, or "by any other means authorized by law." Ibid. Remedies both at law and in equity are available for violations of the statute. See § 2000d-7(a)(2). 591 Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing provisions of Title II, including § 12132's discrimination proscription. See § 204, as set forth in § 12134(a) ("[T]he Attorney General shall promulgate regulations in an accessible format that implement this part.").5 The Attorney General's regulations, Congress further directed, "shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations ... applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance under [§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act]." § 204, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 12134(b). One of the § 504 regulations requires recipients of federal funds to "administer programs and activities in the most integrated 5 Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations implementing the portion of Title II concerning public transportation. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 12143(b), 12149, 12164. As stated in the regulations, a person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II may seek to enforce its provisions by commencing a private lawsuit, or by filing a complaint with (a) a federal agency that provides funding to the public entity that is the subject of the complaint, (b) the Department of Justice for referral to an appropriate agency, or (c) one of eight federal agencies responsible for investigating complaints arising under Title II: the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Transportation. See 28 CFR §§ 35.170(c), 35.172(b), 35.190(b) (1998). The ADA contains several other provisions allocating regulatory and enforcement responsibility. Congress instructed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations implementing Title I, see 42 U. S. C. § 12116; the EEOC, the Attorney General, and persons alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title I may enforce its provisions, see § 12117(a). Congress similarly instructed the Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing provisions of Title III, see §§ 12186(a)(1), (b); the Attorney General and persons alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title III may enforce its provisions, see §§ 12188(a)(1), (b). Each federal agency responsible for ADA implementation may render technical assistance to affected individuals and institutions with respect to provisions of the ADA for which the agency has responsibility. See § 12206(c)(1). 592 setting appropriate to the needs of qualified handicapped persons." 28 CFR § 41.51(d) (1998). As Congress instructed, the Attorney General issued Title II regulations, see 28 CFR pt. 35 (1998), including one modeled on the § 504 regulation just quoted; called the "integration regulation," it reads:

"A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 CFR § 35.130(d) (1998).

The preamble to the Attorney General's Title II regulations defines "the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities" to mean "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible." 28 CFR pt. 35, App. A, p. 450 (1998). Another regulation requires public entities to "make reasonable modifications" to avoid "discrimination on the basis of disability," unless those modifications would entail a "fundamenta[l] alter[ation]"; called here the "reasonable-modifications regulation," it provides:

"A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7) (1998).

We recite these regulations with the caveat that we do not here determine their validity. While the parties differ on the proper construction and enforcement of the regulations, we do not understand petitioners to challenge the regulatory formulations themselves as outside the congressional authorization. See Brief for Petitioners 16-17, 36, 40-41; 593 Reply Brief 15-16 (challenging the Attorney General's interpretation of the integration regulation). II With the key legislative provisions in full view, we summarize the facts underlying this dispute. Respondents L. C. and E. W. are mentally retarded women; L. C. has also been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and E. W. with a personality disorder. Both women have a history of treatment in institutional settings. In May 1992, L. C. was voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta (GRH), where she was confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. By May 1993, her psychiatric condition had stabilized, and L. C.'s treatment team at GRH agreed that her needs could be met appropriately in one of the community-based programs the State supported. Despite this evaluation, L. C. remained institutionalized until February 1996, when the State placed her in a community-based treatment program. E. W. was voluntarily admitted to GRH in February 1995; like L. C., E. W. was confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. In March 1995, GRH sought to discharge E. W. to a homeless shelter, but abandoned that plan after her attorney filed an administrative complaint. By 1996, E. W.'s treating psychiatrist concluded that she could be treated appropriately in a community-based setting. She nonetheless remained institutionalized until a few months after the District Court issued its judgment in this case in 1997. In May 1995, when she was still institutionalized at GRH, L. C. filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, challenging her continued confinement in a segregated environment. Her complaint invoked 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and provisions of the ADA, §§ 12131-12134, and named as defendants, now petitioners, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources, the Superintendent of GRH, and the Executive Director of the Fulton County Regional Board (collectively, 594 the State). L. C. alleged that the State's failure to place her in a community-based program, once her treating professionals determined that such placement was appropriate, violated, inter alia, Title II of the ADA. L. C.'s pleading requested, among other things, that the State place her in a community care residential program, and that she receive treatment with the ultimate goal of integrating her into the mainstream of society. E. W. intervened in the action, stating an identical claim.6 The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of L. C. and E. W. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a-42a. The court held that the State's failure to place L. C. and E. W. in an appropriate community-based treatment program violated Title II of the ADA. See id., at 39a, 41a. In so ruling, the court rejected the State's argument that inadequate funding, not discrimination against L. C. and E. W. "by reason of" their disabilities, accounted for their retention at GRH. Under Title II, the court concluded, "unnecessary institutional segregation of the disabled constitutes discrimination per se, which cannot be justified by a lack of funding." Id., at 37a. In addition to contending that L. C. and E. W. had not shown discrimination "by reason of [their] disabilit[ies]," the State resisted court intervention on the ground that requiring immediate transfers in cases of this order would "fundamentally alter" the State's activity. The State reasserted that it was already using all available funds to provide services to other persons with disabilities. See id., at 38a. Re- 6 L. C. and E. W. are currently receiving treatment in community-based programs. Nevertheless, the case is not moot. As the District Court and Court of Appeals explained, in view of the multiple institutional placements L. C. and E. W. have experienced, the controversy they brought to court is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." No. 1:95-cv-1210MHS (ND Ga., Mar. 26, 1997), p. 6, App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a (internal quotation marks omitted); see 138 F.3d 893, 895, n. 2 (CAll 1998) (citing Honig v. Doe, 484 U. S. 305, 318-323 (1988), and Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 486-487 (1980)). 595 jecting the State's "fundamental alteration" defense, the court observed that existing state programs provided community-based treatment of the kind for which L. C. and E. W. qualified, and that the State could "provide services to plaintiffs in the community at considerably less cost than is required to maintain them in an institution." Id., at 39a. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, but remanded for reassessment of the State's cost-based defense. See 138 F. 3d, at 905. As the appeals court read the statute and regulations: When "a disabled individual's treating professionals find that a community-based placement is appropriate for that individual, the ADA imposes a duty to provide treatment in a community setting-the most integrated setting appropriate to that patient's needs"; "[w]here there is no such finding [by the treating professionals], nothing in the ADA requires the deinstitutionalization of thee] patient." Id., at 902. The Court of Appeals recognized that the State's duty to provide integrated services "is not absolute"; under the Attorney General's Title II regulation, "reasonable modifications" were required of the State, but fundamental alterations were not demanded. I d., at 904. The appeals court thought it clear, however, that "Congress wanted to permit a cost defense only in the most limited of circumstances." Id., at 902. In conclusion, the court stated that a cost justification would fail "[u]nless the State can prove that requiring it to [expend additional funds in order to provide L. C. and E. W. with integrated services] would be so unreasonable given the demands of the State's mental health budget that it would fundamentally alter the service [the State] provides." Id., at 905. Because it appeared that the District Court had entirely ruled out a "lack of funding" justification, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a, the appeals court remanded, repeating that the District Court should consider, among other things, "whether the additional expenditures necessary to treat L. C. and E. W. in community-based care would be unreason- 596 able given the demands of the State's mental health budget." 138 F. 3d, at 905.7 We granted certiorari in view of the importance of the question presented to the States and affected individuals. See 525 U. S. 1054 (1998).8 III Endeavoring to carry out Congress' instruction to issue regulations implementing Title II, the Attorney General, in the integration and reasonable-modifications regulations, see supra, at 591-592, made two key determinations. The first concerned the scope of the ADA's discrimination proscription, 42 U. S. C. § 12132; the second concerned the obligation of the States to counter discrimination. As to the first, the Attorney General concluded that unjustified placement or retention of persons in institutions, severely limiting their exposure to the outside community, constitutes a form of discrimination based on disability prohibited by Title II. See 28 CFR § 35.130(d) (1998) ("A public entity shall administer services ... in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities."); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Helen L. v. DiDario, No. 94-1243 (CA3 1994), pp. 8, 15-16 (unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities constitutes a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA and the integration 7 After this Court granted certiorari, the District Court issued a decision on remand rejecting the State's fundamental-alteration defense. See 1:95-cv-1210-MHS (ND Ga., Jan. 29,1999), p. 1. The court concluded that the annual cost to the State of providing community-based treatment to L. C. and E. W. was not unreasonable in relation to the State's overall mental health budget. See id., at 5. In reaching that judgment, the District Court first declared "irrelevant" the potential impact of its decision beyond L. C. and E. W. 1:95-cv-121O-MHS (ND Ga., Oct. 20, 1998), p. 3, App. 177. The District Court's decision on remand is now pending appeal before the Eleventh Circuit. 8Twenty-two States and the Territory of Guam joined a brief urging that certiorari be granted. Ten of those States joined a brief in support of petitioners on the merits. 597 regulation). Regarding the States' obligation to avoid unjustified isolation of individuals with disabilities, the Attorney General provided that States could resist modifications that "would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7) (1998). The Court of Appeals essentially upheld the Attorney General's construction of the ADA. As just recounted, see supra, at 595-596, the appeals court ruled that the unjustified institutionalization of persons with mental disabilities violated Title II; the court then remanded with instructions to measure the cost of caring for L. C. and E. W. in a community-based facility against the State's mental health budget. We affirm the Court of Appeals' decision in substantial part. Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. But we recognize, as well, the States' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand. Accordingly, we further hold that the Court of Appeals' remand instruction was unduly restrictive. In evaluating a State's fundamental-alteration defense, the District Court must consider, in view of the resources available to the State, not only the cost of providing community-based care to the litigants, but also the range of services the State provides others with mental disabilities, and the State's obligation to mete out those services equitably. A We examine first whether, as the Eleventh Circuit held, undue institutionalization qualifies as discrimination "by reason of ... disability." The Department of Justice has consistently advocated that it does.9 Because the Department 9 See Brief for United States in Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, Nos. 78-1490,78-1564,78-1602(CA3 1978), p. 45 ("[I]nstitutionalization result[ing] in separation of mentally retarded persons for no 598 is the agency directed by Congress to issue regulations implementing Title II, see supra, at 591-592, its views warrant respect. We need not inquire whether the degree of deference described in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984), is in order; "[i]t is enough to observe that the well-reasoned views of the agencies implementing a statute 'constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.'" Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 642 (1998) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944)). The State argues that L. C. and E. W. encountered no discrimination "by reason of" their disabilities because they were not denied community placement on account of those disabilities. See Brief for Petitioners 20. Nor were they subjected to "discrimination," the State contends, because "'discrimination' necessarily requires uneven treatment of similarly situated individuals," and L. C. and E. W. had identified no comparison class, i. e., no similarly situated individuals given preferential treatment. Id., at 21. We are satisfied that Congress had a more comprehensive view of the concept of discrimination advanced in the ADA.lO permissible reason ... is 'discrimination,' and a violation of Section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act] if it is supported by federal funds."); Brief for United States in Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, Nos. 78-1490, 78-1564, 78-1602(CA3 1981), p. 27 ("Pennsylvania violates Section 504 by indiscriminately subjecting handicapped persons to [an institution] without first making an individual reasoned professional judgment as to the appropriate placement for each such person among all available alternatives."); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Helen L. v. DiDario, No. 94-1243(CA3 1994), p. 7 ("Both the Section 504 coordination regulations and the rest of the ADA make clear that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in the provision of public services is itself a form of discrimination within the meaning of those statutes."); id., at 8-16. 10 The dissent is driven by the notion that "this Court has never endorsed an interpretation of the term 'discrimination' that encompassed disparate treatment among members of the same protected class," post, at 616 (opinion of THOMAS, J.), that "[o]ur decisions construing various 599 The ADA stepped up earlier measures to secure opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to enjoy the benefits of community living. The Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, a 1975 measure, stated in aspirational terms that "[t]he treatment, services, and habilitation for a person with developmental disabilities ... should be provided in the setting that is least restrictive of the person's personal liberty." 89 Stat. 502, 42 U. S. C. § 6010(2) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added); see also Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 24 (1981) (concluding that the § 6010 provisions "were intended to be hortatory, not mandatory"). In a related legislative endeavor, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Congress used mandatory language to proscribe discrimination against persons with disabilities. See 87 Stat. 394, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 794 (1976 ed.) ("No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal fi- statutory prohibitions against 'discrimination' have not wavered from this path," post, at 616, and that "a plaintiff cannot prove 'discrimination' by demonstrating that one member of a particular protected group has been favored over another member of that same group," post, at 618. The dissent is incorrect as a matter of precedent and logic. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U. S. 308,312 (1996) (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 "does not ban discrimination against employees because they are aged 40 or older; it bans discrimination against employees because of their age, but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or older. The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is thus irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age."); cf. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 76 (1998) ("[W]orkplace harassment can violate Title VII's prohibition against 'discriminat[ion] ... because of ... sex,' 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex."); Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Assn., 615 F.2d 1025, 1032 (CA5 1980) ("[D]iscrimination against black females can exist even in the absence of discrimination against black men or white women."). 600 nancial assistance." (Emphasis added.)) Ultimately, in the ADA, enacted in 1990, Congress not only required all public entities to refrain from discrimination, see 42 U. S. C. § 12132; additionally, in findings applicable to the entire statute, Congress explicitly identified unjustified "segregation" of persons with disabilities as a "for[m] of discrimination." See § 12101(a)(2) ("historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem"); § 12101(a)(5) ("individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including ... segregation").l1 Recognition that unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination reflects two evident judgments. First, institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life. Cf. Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755 (1984) ("There can be no doubt that [stigmatizing injury often caused by racial discrimination] is one of the most serious consequences of discriminatory government action."); Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 707, n. 13 (1978) (" 'In forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.'" (quoting Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194, 1198 (CA7 11 Unlike the ADA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act contains no express recognition that isolation or segregation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination. Section 504's discrimination proscription, a single sentence attached to vocational rehabilitation legislation, has yielded divergent court interpretations. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23-25. 601 1971)). Second, confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment. See Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 20-22. Dissimilar treatment correspondingly exists in this key respect: In order to receive needed medical services, persons with mental disabilities must, because of those disabilities, relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6-7, 17. The State urges that, whatever Congress may have stated as its findings in the ADA, the Medicaid statute "reflected a congressional policy preference for treatment in the institution over treatment in the community." Brief for Petitioners 31. The State correctly used the past tense. Since 1981, Medicaid has provided funding for state-run home and community-based care through a waiver program. See 95 Stat. 812-813, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1396n(c); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20-21.12 Indeed, the United States points out that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) "has a policy of encouraging States to take advantage of the waiver program, and often approves more waiver slots than a State ultimately uses." Id., at 25-26 (further observing that, by 1996, "HHS approved up to 2109 waiver slots for Georgia, but Georgia used only 700"). We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community 12 The waiver program provides Medicaid reimbursement to States for the provision of community-based services to individuals who would otherwise require institutional care, upon a showing that the average annual cost of such services is not more than the annual cost of institutional services. See § 1396n(c). 602 settings. Title II provides only that "qualified individual[s] with a disability" may not "be subjected to discrimination." 42 U. S. C. § 12132. "Qualified individuals," the ADA further explains, are persons with disabilities who, "with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, ... mee[t] the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." § 12131(2). Consistent with these provisions, the State generally may rely on the reasonable assessments of its own professionals in determining whether an individual "meets the essential eligibility requirements" for habilitation in a communitybased program. Absent such qualification, it would be inappropriate to remove a patient from the more restrictive setting. See 28 CFR § 35.130(d) (1998) (public entity shall administer services and programs in "the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities" (emphasis added)); cf. School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline, 480 U. S. 273, 288 (1987) ("[C]ourts normally should defer to the reasonable medical judgments of public health officials.")Y Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it. See 28 CFR § 35.130(e)(1) (1998) ("Nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation ... which such individual chooses not to accept."); 28 CFR pt. 35, App. A, p. 450 (1998) ("[P]ersons with disabilities must be provided the option of declining to accept a particular accommodation."). In this case, however, there is no genuine dispute concerning the status of L. C. and E. W. as individuals "quali- 13 Georgia law also expresses a preference for treatment in the most integrated setting appropriate. See Ga. Code Ann. § 37-4-121 (1995) ("It is the policy of the state that the least restrictive alternative placement be secured for every client at every stage of his habilitation. It shall be the duty of the facility to assist the client in securing placement in noninstitutional community facilities and programs."). 603 fied" for noninstitutional care: The State's own professionals determined that community-based treatment would be appropriate for L. C. and E. W., and neither woman opposed such treatment. See supra, at 593.14 B The State's responsibility, once it provides communitybased treatment to qualified persons with disabilities, is not boundless. The reasonable-modifications regulation speaks of "reasonable modifications" to avoid discrimination, and allows States to resist modifications that entail a "fund amenta[l] alter[ation]" of the States' services and programs. 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7) (1998). The Court of Appeals construed this regulation to permit a cost-based defense "only in the most limited of circumstances," 138 F. 3d, at 902, and remanded to the District Court to consider, among other things, "whether the additional expenditures necessary to treat L. C. and E. W. in community-based care would be unreasonable given the demands of the State's mental health budget," id., at 905. The Court of Appeals' construction of the reasonablemodifications regulation is unacceptable for it would leave the State virtually defenseless once it is shown that the plaintiff is qualified for the service or program she seeks. If the expense entailed in placing one or two people in a communitybased treatment program is properly measured for reasonableness against the State's entire mental health budget, it is unlikely that a State, relying on the fundamental-alteration defense, could ever prevail. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27 (State's attorney argues that Court of Appeals' understanding of the 14 We do not in this opinion hold that the ADA imposes on the States a "standard of care" for whatever medical services they render, or that the ADA requires States to "provide a certain level of benefits to individuals with disabilities." Cf. post, at 623, 624 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). We do hold, however, that States must adhere to the ADA's nondiscrimination requirement with regard to the services they in fact provide. 604 Opinion of GINSBURG, J. fundamental-alteration defense, as expressed in its order to the District Court, "will always preclude the State from a meaningful defense"); cf. Brief for Petitioners 37-38 (Court of Appeals' remand order "mistakenly asks the district court to examine [the fundamental-alteration] defense based on the cost of providing community care to just two individuals, not all Georgia citizens who desire community care"); 1:95cv-1210-MHS (ND Ga., Oct. 20, 1998), p. 3, App. 177 (District Court, on remand, declares the impact of its decision beyond L. C. and E. W. "irrelevant"). Sensibly construed, the fundamental-alteration component of the reasonablemodifications regulation would allow the State to show that, in the allocation of available resources, immediate relief for the plaintiffs would be inequitable, given the responsibility the State has undertaken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with mental disabilities. When it granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in this case, the District Court compared the cost of caring for the plaintiffs in a community-based setting with the cost of caring for them in an institution. That simple comparison showed that community placements cost less than institutional confinements. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a. As the United States recognizes, however, a comparison so simple overlooks costs the State cannot avoid; most notably, a "State ... may experience increased overall expenses by funding community placements without being able to take advantage of the savings associated with the closure of institutions." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21.15 As already observed, see supra, at 601-602, the ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions, placing patients in need of close care at risk. Cf. post, at 15 Even if States eventually were able to close some institutions in response to an increase in the number of community placements, the States would still incur the cost of running partially full institutions in the interim. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21. 605 610 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment). Nor is it the ADA's mission to drive States to move institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting, such as a homeless shelter, a placement the State proposed, then retracted, for E. W. See supra, at 593. Some individuals, like L. C. and E. W. in prior years, may need institutional care from time to time "to stabilize acute psychiatric symptoms." App. 98 (affidavit of Dr. Richard L. Elliott); see 138 F. 3d, at 903 ("[T]here may be times [when] a patient can be treated in the community, and others whe[n] an institutional placement is necessary."); Reply Brief 19 (placement in a communitybased treatment program does not mean the State will no longer need to retain hospital accommodations for the person so placed). For other individuals, no placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate. See Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 22-23 ("Some individuals, whether mentally retarded or mentally ill, are not prepared at particular times-perhaps in the short run, perhaps in the long run-for the risks and exposure of the less protective environment of community settings"; for these persons, "institutional settings are needed and must remain available."); Brief for Voice of the Retarded et al. as Amici Curiae 11 ("Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person-recognizing that, on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be in an institution."); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 327 (1982) (Blackmun, J., concurring) ("For many mentally retarded people, the difference between the capacity to do things for themselves within an institution and total dependence on the institution for all of their needs is as much liberty as they ever will know."). To maintain a range of facilities and to administer services with an even hand, the State must have more leeway than the courts below understood the fundamental-alteration defense to allow. If, for example, the State were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan 606 Opinion of GINSBURG, J. for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State's endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated, the reasonable-modifications standard would be met. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5 (State's attorney urges that, "by asking [a] person to wait a short time until a community bed is available, Georgia does not exclude [that] person by reason of disability, neither does Georgia discriminate against her by reason of disability"); see also id., at 25 ("[I]t is reasonable for the State to ask someone to wait until a community placement is available."). In such circumstances, a court would have no warrant effectively to order displacement of persons at the top of the communitybased treatment waiting list by individuals lower down who commenced civil actions.16 16We reject the Court of Appeals' construction of the reasonablemodifications regulation for another reason. The Attorney General's Title II regulations, Congress ordered, "shall be consistent with" the regulations in part 41 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations implementing § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U. S. C. § 12134(b). The § 504 regulation upon which the reasonable-modifications regulation is based provides now, as it did at the time the ADA was enacted: "A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physicalor mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program." 28 CFR § 41.53 (1990 and 1998 eds.). While the part 41 regulations do not define "undue hardship," other § 504 regulations make clear that the "undue hardship" inquiry requires not simply an assessment of the cost of the accommodation in relation to the recipient's overall budget, but a "case-by-case analysis weighing factors that include: (1) [t]he overall size of the recipient's program with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget; (2) [t]he type of the recipient's operation, including the composition and structure of the recipient's workforce; and (3) [t]he nature and cost of the accommodation needed." 28 CFR § 42.511 (c) (1998); see 45 CFR § 84.12(c) (1998) (same). Under the Court of Appeals' restrictive reading, the reasonablemodifications regulation would impose a standard substantially more 607 *** For the reasons stated, we conclude that, under Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide communitybased treatment for persons with mental disabilities when the State's treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose such treatment, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is therefore affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Unjustified disparate treatment, in this case, "unjustified institutional isolation," constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. See ante, at 600. If a plaintiff requests relief that requires modification of a State's services or programs, the State may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the requested modification would cause a fundamental alteration of a State's services and programs. In this case, the Court of Appeals appropriately remanded for consideration of the State's affirmative defense. On remand, the District Court rejected the State's "fundamental-alteration defense." See ante, at 596, n. 7. If the District Court was wrong in concluding that costs unrelated to the treatment of L. C. and E. W. do not support such a defense in this case, that arguable error should be corrected either by the Court of Appeals or by this Court in review of that decision. In my opinion, therefore, we should simply affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. difficult for the State to meet than the "undue burden" standard imposed by the corresponding § 504 regulation. 608 KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment But because there are not five votes for that disposition, I join the Court's judgment and Parts I, II, and III-A of its opinion. Cf. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 655-656 (1998) (STEVENS, J., concurring); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 134 (1945) (Rutledge, J., concurring in result). JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment. I Despite remarkable advances and achievements by medical science, and agreement among many professionals that even severe mental illness is often treatable, the extent of public resources to devote to this cause remains controversial. Knowledgeable professionals tell us that our society, and the governments which reflect its attitudes and preferences, have yet to grasp the potential for treating mental disorders, especially severe mental illness. As a result, necessary resources for the endeavor often are not forthcoming. During the course of a year, about 5.6 million Americans will suffer from severe mental illness. E. Torrey, Out of the Shadows 4 (1997). Some 2.2 million of these persons receive no treatment. Id., at 6. Millions of other Americans suffer from mental disabilities of less serious degree, such as mild depression. These facts are part of the background against which this case arises. In addition, of course, persons with mental disabilities have been subject to historic mistreatment, indifference, and hostility. See, e. g.,Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 461464 (1985) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (discussing treatment of the mentally retarded). Despite these obstacles, the States have acknowledged that the care of the mentally disabled is their special obligation. They operate and support facilities and programs, sometimes elaborate ones, to provide care. It is a continu- 609 ing challenge, though, to provide the care in an effective and humane way, particularly because societal attitudes and the responses of public authorities have changed from time to time. Beginning in the 1950's, many victims of severe mental illness were moved out of state-run hospitals, often with benign objectives. According to one estimate, when adjusted for population growth, "the actual decrease in the numbers of people with severe mental illnesses in public psychiatric hospitals between 1955 and 1994 was 92 percent." Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 21, n. 5 (citing Torrey, supra, at 8-9). This was not without benefit or justification. The so-called "deinstitutionalization" has permitted a substantial number of mentally disabled persons to receive needed treatment with greater freedom and dignity. It may be, moreover, that those who remain institutionalized are indeed the most severe cases. With reference to this case, as the Court points out, ante, at 593, 603, it is undisputed that the State's own treating professionals determined that community-based care was medically appropriate for respondents. N evertheless, the depopulation of state mental hospitals has its dark side. According to one expert:

"For a substantial minority ... deinstitutionalization has been a psychiatric Titanic. Their lives are virtually devoid of 'dignity' or 'integrity of body, mind, and spirit.' 'Self-determination' often means merely that the person has a choice of soup kitchens. The 'least restrictive setting' frequently turns out to be a cardboard box, a jail cell, or a terror-filled existence plagued by both real and imaginary enemies." Torrey,supra, at 11.

It must be remembered that for the person with severe mental illness who has no treatment the most dreaded of confinements can be the imprisonment inflicted by his own mind, 610 KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment which shuts reality out and subjects him to the torment of voices and images beyond our own powers to describe. It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of litigation, to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision. The opinion of a responsible treating physician in determining the appropriate conditions for treatment ought to be given the greatest of deference. It is a common phenomenon that a patient functions well with medication, yet, because of the mental illness itself, lacks the discipline or capacity to follow the regime the medication requires. This is illustrative of the factors a responsible physician will consider in recommending the appropriate setting or facility for treatment. JUSTICE GINSBURG'S opinion takes account of this background. It is careful, and quite correct, to say that it is not "the ADA's mission to drive States to move institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting, such as a homeless shelter .... " Ante, at 605. In light of these concerns, if the principle of liability announced by the Court is not applied with caution and circumspection, States may be pressured into attempting compliance on the cheap, placing marginal patients into integrated settings devoid of the services and attention necessary for their condition. This danger is in addition to the federalism costs inherent in referring state decisions regarding the administration of treatment programs and the allocation of resources to the reviewing authority of the federal courts. It is of central importance, then, that courts apply today's decision with great deference to the medical decisions of the responsible, treating physicians and, as the Court makes clear, with appropriate deference to the program funding decisions of state policymakers. 611 II With these reservations made explicit, in my view we must remand the case for a determination of the questions the Court poses and for a determination whether respondents can show a violation of 42 U. S. C. § 12132's ban on discrimination based on the summary judgment materials on file or any further pleadings and materials properly allowed. At the outset it should be noted there is no allegation that Georgia officials acted on the basis of animus or unfair stereotypes regarding the disabled. Underlying much discrimination law is the notion that animus can lead to false and unjustified stereotypes, and vice versa. Of course, the line between animus and stereotype is often indistinct, and it is not always necessary to distinguish between them. Section 12132 can be understood to deem as irrational, and so to prohibit, distinctions by which a class of disabled persons, or some within that class, are, by reason of their disability and without adequate justification, exposed by a state entity to more onerous treatment than a comparison group in the provision of services or the administration of existing programs, or indeed entirely excluded from state programs or facilities. Discrimination under this statute might in principle be shown in the case before us, though further proceedings should be required. Putting aside issues of animus or unfair stereotype, I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that on the ordinary interpretation and meaning of the term, one who alleges discrimination must show that she "received differential treatment vis-a-vis members of a different group on the basis of a statutorily described characteristic." Post, at 616 (dissenting opinion). In my view, however, discrimination so defined might be shown here. Although the Court seems to reject JUSTICE THOMAS' definition of discrimination, ante, at 598, it asserts that unnecessary institutional care does lead to "[d]issimilar treatment," ante, at 601. According to the Court, "[i]n order to receive needed medical services, persons with mental dis- 612 KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment abilities must, because of those disabilities, relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice." Ibid. Although this point is not discussed at length by the Court, it does serve to suggest the theory under which respondents might be subject to discrimination in violation of § 12132. If they could show that persons needing psychiatric or other medical services to treat a mental disability are subject to a more onerous condition than are persons eligible for other existing state medical services, and if removal of the condition would not be a fundamental alteration of a program or require the creation of a new one, then the beginnings of a discrimination case would be established. In terms more specific to this case, if respondents could show that Georgia (i) provides treatment to individuals suffering from medical problems of comparable seriousness, (ii) as a general matter, does so in the most integrated setting appropriate for the treatment of those problems (taking medical and other practical considerations into account), but (iii) without adequate justification, fails to do so for a group of mentally disabled persons (treating them instead in separate, locked institutional facilities), I believe it would demonstrate discrimination on the basis of mental disability. Of course, it is a quite different matter to say that a State without a program in place is required to create one. No State has unlimited resources, and each must make hard decisions on how much to allocate to treatment of diseases and disabilities. If, for example, funds for care and treatment of the mentally ill, including the severely mentally ill, are reduced in order to support programs directed to the treatment and care of other disabilities, the decision may be unfortunate. The judgment, however, is a political one and not within the reach of the statute. Grave constitutional concerns are raised when a federal court is given the author- 613 ity to review the State's choices in basic matters such as establishing or declining to establish new programs. It is not reasonable to read the ADA to permit court intervention in these decisions. In addition, as the Court notes, ante, at 592, by regulation a public entity is required only to make "reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures" when necessary to avoid discrimination and is not even required to make those if "the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7) (1998). It follows that a State may not be forced to create a community-treatment program where none exists. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19-20, and n. 3. Whether a different statutory scheme would exceed constitutional limits need not be addressed. Discrimination, of course, tends to be an expansive concept and, as legal category, it must be applied with care and prudence. On any reasonable reading of the statute, § 12132 cannot cover all types of differential treatment of disabled and nondisabled persons, no matter how minimal or innocuous. To establish discrimination in the context of this case, and absent a showing of policies motivated by improper animus or stereotypes, it would be necessary to show that a comparable or similarly situated group received differential treatment. Regulations are an important tool in identifying the kinds of contexts, policies, and practices that raise concerns under the ADA. The congressional findings in 42 U. S. C. § 12101 also serve as a useful aid for courts to discern the sorts of discrimination with which Congress was concerned. Indeed, those findings have clear bearing on the issues raised in this case, and support the conclusion that unnecessary institutionalization may be the evidence or the result of the discrimination the ADA prohibits. Unlike JUSTICE THOMAS, I deem it relevant and instructive that Congress in express terms identified the "isolat[ion] and segregat[ion]" of disabled persons by society as a "for[m] 614 KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment of discrimination," §§ 12101(a)(2), (5), and noted that discrimination against the disabled "persists in such critical areas as ... institutionalization," § 12101(a)(3). These findings do not show that segregation and institutionalization are always discriminatory or that segregation or institutionalization are, by their nature, forms of prohibited discrimination. Nor do they necessitate a regime in which individual treatment plans are required, as distinguished from broad and reasonable classifications for the provision of health care services. Instead, they underscore Congress' concern that discrimination has been a frequent and pervasive problem in institutional settings and policies and its concern that segregating disabled persons from others can be discriminatory. Both of those concerns are consistent with the normal definition of discrimination-differential treatment of similarly situated groups. The findings inform application of that definition in specific cases, but absent guidance to the contrary, there is no reason to think they displace it. The issue whether respondents have been discriminated against under § 12132 by institutionalized treatment cannot be decided in the abstract, divorced from the facts surrounding treatment programs in their State. The possibility therefore remains that, on the facts of this case, respondents would be able to support a claim under § 12132 by showing that they have been subject to discrimination by Georgia officials on the basis of their disability. This inquiry would not be simple. Comparisons of different medical conditions and the corresponding treatment regimens might be difficult, as would be assessments of the degree of integration of various settings in which medical treatment is offered. For example, the evidence might show that, apart from services for the mentally disabled, medical treatment is rarely offered in a community setting but also is rarely offered in facilities comparable to state mental hospitals. Determining the relevance of that type of evidence would require considerable judgment and anal- 615 ysis. However, as petitioners observe, "[i]n this case, no class of similarly situated individuals was even identified, let alone shown to be given preferential treatment." Brief for Petitioners 21. Without additional information regarding the details of state-provided medical services in Georgia, we cannot address the issue in the way the statute demands. As a consequence, the judgment of the courts below, granting partial summary judgment to respondents, ought not to be sustained. In addition, as JUSTICE GINSBURG'S opinion is careful to note, ante, at 604, it was error in the earlier proceedings to restrict the relevance and force of the State's evidence regarding the comparative costs of treatment. The State is entitled to wide discretion in adopting its own systems of cost analysis, and, if it chooses, to allocate health care resources based on fixed and overhead costs for whole institutions and programs. We must be cautious when we seek to infer specific rules limiting States' choices when Congress has used only general language in the controlling statute. I would remand the case to the Court of Appeals or the District Court for it to determine in the first instance whether a statutory violation is sufficiently alleged and supported in respondents' summary judgment materials and, if not, whether they should be given leave to replead and to introduce evidence and argument along the lines suggested above. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court. JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE SCALIA join, dissenting. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 12132, provides:

"Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities

of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." (Emphasis added.)

The majority concludes that petitioners "discriminated" against respondents-as a matter of law-by continuing to treat them in an institutional setting after they became eligible for community placement. I disagree. Temporary exclusion from community placement does not amount to "discrimination" in the traditional sense of the word, nor have respondents shown that petitioners "discriminated" against them "by reason of" their disabilities. Until today, this Court has never endorsed an interpretation of the term "discrimination" that encompassed disparate treatment among members of the same protected class. Discrimination, as typically understood, requires a showing that a claimant received differential treatment visa-vis members of a different group on the basis of a statutorily described characteristic. This interpretation comports with dictionary definitions of the term discrimination, which means to "distinguish," to "differentiate," or to make a "distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." Random House Dictionary 564 (2d ed. 1987); see also Webster's Third New International Dictionary 648 (1981) (defining "discrimination" as "the making or perceiving of a distinction or difference" or as "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually"). Our decisions construing various statutory prohibitions against "discrimination" have not wavered from this path. The best place to begin is with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, the paradigmatic antidiscrimination law.1 Title VII makes it "an unlawful em- 1 We have incorporated Title VII standards of discrimination when interpreting statutes prohibiting other forms of discrimination. For example, Rev. Stat. § 1977, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, has been interpreted to forbid all racial discrimination in the making of private and 617 ployment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). We have explained that this language is designed "to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 429-430 (1971).2 Under Title VII, a finding of discrimination requires a comparison of otherwise similarly situated persons who are in different groups by reason of certain characteristics provided by statute. See, e. g., Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669, 683 (1983) (explain- public contracts. See Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U. S. 604, 609 (1987). This Court has applied the "framework" developed in Title VII cases to claims brought under this statute. Patterson v. M cLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 186 (1989). Also, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(I), prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee's age. This Court has noted that its "interpretation of Title VII ... applies with equal force in the context of age discrimination, for the substantive provisions of the ADEA 'were derived in haec verba from Title VII.''' Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 121 (1985) (quoting Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 584 (1978)). This Court has also looked to its Title VII interpretations of discrimination in illuminating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1681 et seq., which prohibits discrimination under any federally funded education program or activity. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 75 (1992) (relying on Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986), a Title VII case, in determining that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination). 2 This Court has recognized that two forms of discrimination are prohibited under Title VII: disparate treatment and disparate impact. See Griggs, 401 U. S., at 431 ("The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation"). Both forms of "discrimination" require a comparison among classes of employees. 618 ing that Title VII discrimination occurs when an employee is treated "'in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different''') (quoting Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 711 (1978)). For this reason, we have described as "nonsensical" the comparison of the racial composition of different classes of job categories in determining whether there existed disparate impact discrimination with respect to a particular job category. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642, 651 (1989).3 Courts interpreting Title VII have held that a plaintiff cannot prove "discrimination" by demonstrating that one member of a particular protected group has been favored over another member of that same group. See, e. g., Bush v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 990 F.2d 928, 931 (CA7 1993), cert. denied, 511 U. S. 1071 (1994) (explaining that under Title VII, a fired black employee "had to show that although he was not a good employee, equally bad employees were treated more leniently by [his employer] if they happened not to be black"). Our cases interpreting § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, as amended, which prohibits "discrimination" against certain individuals with disabilities, have applied this commonly understood meaning of discrimination. Section 504 provides:

"No otherwise qualified handicapped individual ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub-

3 Following Wards Cove, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166,105 Stat. 1071, as amended, which, inter alia, altered the burden of proof with respect to a disparate impact discrimination claim. See id., § 105 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(k)). This change highlights the principle that a departure from the traditional understanding of discrimination requires congressional action. Cf. Field v. Mans, 516 U. S. 59, 69-70 (1995) (Congress legislates against the background rule of the common law and traditional notions of lawful conduct). 619

jected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

In keeping with the traditional paradigm, we have always limited the application of the term "discrimination" in the Rehabilitation Act to a person who is a member of a protected group and faces discrimination "by reason of his handicap." Indeed, we previously rejected the argument that § 504 requires the type of "affirmative efforts to overcome the disabilities caused by handicaps," Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397, 410 (1979), that the majority appears to endorse today. Instead, we found that § 504 required merely "the evenhanded treatment of handicapped persons" relative to those persons who do not have disabilities. Ibid. Our conclusion was informed by the fact that some provisions of the Rehabilitation Act envision "affirmative action" on behalf of those individuals with disabilities, but § 504 itself "does not refer at all" to such action. Ibid. Therefore, "[a] comparison of these provisions demonstrates that Congress understood accommodation of the needs of handicapped individuals may require affirmative action and knew how to provide for it in those instances where it wished to do so." Id., at 411. Similarly, in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S. 287, 302 (1985), we found no discrimination under § 504 with respect to a limit on inpatient hospital care that was "neutral on its face" and did not "distinguish between those whose coverage will be reduced and those whose coverage will not on the basis of any test, judgment, or trait that the handicapped as a class are less capable of meeting or less likely of having," id., at 302. We said that § 504 does "not ... guarantee the handicapped equal results from the provision of state Medicaid, even assuming some measure of equality of health could be constructed." Id., at 304. Likewise, in Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U. S. 535, 548 (1988), we reiterated that the purpose of § 504 is to guarantee that individuals with disabilities receive "evenhanded treatment" 620 relative to those persons without disabilities. In Traynor, the Court upheld a Veterans' Administration regulation that excluded "primary alcoholics" from a benefit that was extended to persons disabled by alcoholism related to a mental disorder. Id., at 551. In so doing, the Court noted that "[t]his litigation does not involve a program or activity that is alleged to treat handicapped persons less favorably than nonhandicapped persons." Id., at 548. Given the theory of the case, the Court explicitly held: "There is nothing in the Rehabilitation Act that requires that any benefit extended to one category of handicapped persons also be extended to all other categories of handicapped persons." Id., at 549. This same understanding of discrimination also informs this Court's constitutional interpretation of the term. See General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U. S. 278, 298 (1997) (noting with respect to interpreting the Commerce Clause, "[c]onceptually, of course, any notion of discrimination assumes a comparison of substantially similar entities"); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 374 (1886) (condemning under the Fourteenth Amendment "illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances"); see also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U. S. 200, 223-224 (1995); Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493-494 (1989) (plurality opinion). Despite this traditional understanding, the majority derives a more "comprehensive" definition of "discrimination," as that term is used in Title II of the ADA, one that includes "institutional isolation of persons with disabilities." Ante, at 600. It chiefly relies on certain congressional findings contained within the ADA. To be sure, those findings appear to equate institutional isolation with segregation, and thereby discrimination. See ibid. (quoting §§ 12101(a)(2) and 12101(a)(5), both of which explicitly identify "segregation" of persons with disabilities as a form of "discrimination"); see also ante, at 588-589. The congressional findings, however, are written in general, hortatory terms and pro- 621 vide little guidance to the interpretation of the specific language of § 12132. See National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U. S. 249, 260 (1994) ("We also think that the quoted statement of congressional findings is a rather thin reed upon which to base a requirement"). In my view, the vague congressional findings upon which the majority relies simply do not suffice to show that Congress sought to overturn a well-established understanding of a statutory term (here, "discrimination").4 Moreover, the majority fails to explain why terms in the findings should be given a medical content, pertaining to the place where a mentally retarded person is treated. When read in context, the findings instead suggest that terms such as "segregation" were used in a more general sense, pertaining to matters such as access to employment, facilities, and transportation. Absent a clear directive to the contrary, we must read "discrimination" in light of the common understanding of the term. We cannot expand the meaning of the term "discrimination" in order to invalidate policies we may find unfortunate. Cf. NLRB v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 341 U. S. 322, 325 (1951) (explaining that if Congress intended statutory terms "to have other than their ordinarily accepted meaning, 4 If such general hortatory language is sufficient, it is puzzling that this or any other court did not reach the same conclusion long ago by reference to the general purpose language of the Rehabilitation Act itself. See 29 U. S. C. § 701 (1988 ed.) (describing the statute's purpose as "to develop and implement, through research, training, services, and the guarantee of equal opportunity, comprehensive and coordinated programs of vocational rehabilitation and independent living, for individuals with handicaps in order to maximize their employability, independence, and integration into the workplace and the community" (emphasis added)). Further, this section has since been amended to proclaim in even more aspirational terms that the policy under the statute is driven by, inter alia, "respect for individual dignity, personal responsibility, self-determination, and pursuit of meaningful careers, based on informed choice, of individuals with disabilities," "respect for the privacy, rights, and equal access," and "inclusion, integration, and full participation of the individuals." 29 U. S. C. §§ 701(c)(1)-(3). 622 it would and should have given them a special meaning by definition").5 Elsewhere in the ADA, Congress chose to alter the traditional definition of discrimination. Title I of the ADA, § 12112(b)(1), defines discrimination to include "limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee." Notably, however, Congress did not provide that this definition of discrimination, unlike other aspects of the ADA, applies to Title II. Ordinary canons of construction require that we respect the limited applicability of this definition of "discrimination" and not import it into other parts of the law where Congress did not see fit. See, e. g., Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29-30 (1997) (" 'Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion''') (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983)). The majority's definition of discrimination-although not specifically delineated-substantially imports the definition of Title I into Title II by necessarily assuming that it is sufficient to focus exclusively on members of one particular 5 Given my conclusion, the Court need not review the integration regulation promulgated by the Attorney General. See 28 CFR § 35.130(d) (1998). Deference to a regulation is appropriate only" 'if Congress has not expressed its intent with respect to the question, and then only if the administrative interpretation is reasonable.' " Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd.,520 U. S. 471, 483 (1997) (quoting Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U. S. 491, 508 (1992)). Here, Congress has expressed its intent in § 12132, and the Attorney General's regulation-insofar as it contradicts the settled meaning of the statutory term-cannot prevail against it. See NLRB v. Town & Country Elec., Inc.,516 U. S. 85, 94 (1995) (explaining that courts interpreting a term within a statute "must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of that term" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 623 group. Under this view, discrimination occurs when some members of a protected group are treated differently from other members of that same group. As the preceding discussion emphasizes, absent a special definition supplied by Congress, this conclusion is a remarkable and novel proposition that finds no support in our decisions in analogous areas. For example, the majority's conclusion that petitioners "discriminated" against respondents is the equivalent to finding discrimination under Title VII where a black employee with deficient management skills is denied in-house training by his employer (allegedly because of lack of funding) because other similarly situated black employees are given the inhouse training. Such a claim would fly in the face of our prior case law, which requires more than the assertion that a person belongs to a protected group and did not receive some benefit. See, e. g., Griggs, 401 U. S., at 430-431 ("Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act does not command that any person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group"). At bottom, the type of claim approved of by the majority does not concern a prohibition against certain conduct (the traditional understanding of discrimination), but rather concerns imposition of a standard of care.6 As such, the major- 6 In mandating that government agencies minimize the institutional isolation of disabled individuals, the majority appears to appropriate the concept of "mainstreaming" from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. But IDEA is not an antidiscrimination law. It is a grant program that affirmatively requires States accepting federal funds to provide disabled children with a "free appropriate public education" and to establish "procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities ... are educated with children who are not disabled." §§ 1412(1), (5). Ironically, even under this broad affirmative mandate, we previously rejected a claim that IDEA required the "standard of care" 624 ity can offer no principle limiting this new species of "discrimination" claim apart from an affirmative defense because it looks merely to an individual in isolation, without comparing him to otherwise similarly situated persons, and determines that discrimination occurs merely because that individual does not receive the treatment he wishes to receive. By adopting such a broad view of discrimination, the majority drains the term of any meaning other than as a proxy for decisions disapproved of by this Court. Further, I fear that the majority's approach imposes significant federalism costs, directing States how to make decisions about their delivery of public services. We previously have recognized that constitutional principles of federalism erect limits on the Federal Government's ability to direct state officers or to interfere with the functions of state governments. See, e. g., Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992). We have suggested that these principles specifically apply to whether States are required to provide a certain level of benefits to individuals with disabilities. As noted in Alexander, in rejecting a similar theory under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: "[N]othing ... suggests that Congress desired to make major inroads on the States' longstanding discretion to choose the proper mix of amount, scope, and duration limitations on services .... " 469 U. S., at 307. See also Bowen v. American Hospital Assn., 476 U. S. 610, 642 (1986) (plurality opinion) ("[N]othing in [§ 504] authorizes [the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)] to commandeer state agencies .... [These] agencies are analysis adopted by the majority today. See Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 198 (1982) ("We think ... that the requirement that a State provide specialized educational services to handicapped children generates no additional requirement that the services so provided be sufficient to maximize each child's potential commensurate with the opportunity provided other children" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 625 not field offices of the HHS bureaucracy, and they may not be conscripted against their will as the foot soldiers in a federal crusade"). The majority's affirmative defense will likely come as cold comfort to the States that will now be forced to defend themselves in federal court every time resources prevent the immediate placement of a qualified individual. In keeping with our traditional deference in this area, see Alexander, supra, the appropriate course would be to respect the States' historical role as the dominant authority responsible for providing services to individuals with disabilities. The majority may remark that it actually does properly compare members of different groups. Indeed, the majority mentions in passing the "[d]issimilar treatment" of persons with and without disabilities. Ante, at 601. It does so in the context of supporting its conclusion that institutional isolation is a form of discrimination. It cites two cases as standing for the unremarkable proposition that discrimination leads to deleterious stereotyping, ante, at 600 (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755 (1984); Manhart, 435 U. S., at 707, n. 13)), and an amicus brief which indicates that confinement diminishes certain everyday life activities, ante, at 601 (citing Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 20-22). The majority then observes that persons without disabilities "can receive the services they need without" institutionalization and thereby avoid these twin deleterious effects. Ante, at 601. I do not quarrel with the two general propositions, but I fail to see how they assist in resolving the issue before the Court. Further, the majority neither specifies what services persons with disabilities might need nor contends that persons without disabilities need the same services as those with disabilities, leading to the inference that the dissimilar treatment the majority observes results merely from the fact that different classes of persons receive different services-not from "discrimination" as traditionally defined. 626 Finally, it is also clear petitioners did not "discriminate" against respondents "by reason of [their] disabili[ties]," as § 12132 requires. We have previously interpreted the phrase "by reason of" as requiring proximate causation. See, e. g., Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U. S. 258, 265-266 (1992); see also id., at 266, n. 11 (citation of cases). Such an interpretation is in keeping with the vernacular understanding of the phrase. See American Heritage Dictionary 1506 (3d ed. 1992) (defining "by reason of" as "because of"). This statute should be read as requiring proximate causation as well. Respondents do not contend that their disabilities constituted the proximate cause for their exclusion. Nor could they-community placement simply is not available to those without disabilities. Continued institutional treatment of persons who, though now deemed treatable in a community placement, must wait their turn for placement does not establish that the denial of community placement occurred "by reason of" their disability. Rather, it establishes no more than the fact that petitioners have limited resources. *** For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

# data[].attributes.body
These cases set important precedents of Equal Opportunity laws, particularly in the context of education, and continue to shape legal standards and practices in ensuring equal access to education for all individuals.

End of racial segregation in public schools. School districts are required to take affirmative steps to eliminate segregation and provide equal opportunities for all students regardless of race.

Public entities must make reasonable modifications to their policies to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities, including providing services neccessary to enable them to live and participate in the community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

# data[].attributes.subject
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

# data[].attributes.body
One federal regulation that aligns closely with Equal Opportunity laws is the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This regulation prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. It covers issues such as sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, and equal access to educational opportunities. Title IX states, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,..." (Title IX, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TITLE 20 - Education CHAPTER 38 - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR BLINDNESS

CHAPTER REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This chapter is referred to in sections 1132f-1, 1232, 3041, 3042 of this title; title 29 sections 206, 1577; title 42 sections 290cc-34, 300w-7, 300x-7, 708, 1988, 2000d-7, 10406.
Back to top of the page Sec. 1681. Sex
(a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:

(1) Classes of educational institutions subject to prohibition

in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public institutions of undergraduate higher education;

(2) Educational institutions commencing planned change in admissions

in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall not apply

(A) for one year from June 23, 1972, nor for six years after June 23, 1972, in the case of an educational institution which has begun the process of changing from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes, but only if it is carrying out a plan for such a change which is approved by the Secretary of Education or

(B) for seven years from the date an educational institution begins the process of changing from being an institution which admits only students of only one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes, but only if it is carrying out a plan for such a change which is approved by the Secretary of Education, whichever is the later;

(3) Educational institutions of religious organizations with contrary religious tenets

this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization;

(4) Educational institutions training individuals for military services or merchant marine

this section shall not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for the military services of the United States, or the merchant marine;

(5) Public educational institutions with traditional and continuing admissions policy

in regard to admissions this section shall not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education which is an institution that traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting only students of one sex;

(6) Social fraternities or sororities; voluntary youth service organizations

this section shall not apply to membership practices -

(A) of a social fraternity or social sorority which is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of title 26, the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher education, or

(B) of the Young Men's Christian Association, Young Women's Christian Association, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, and voluntary youth service organizations which are so exempt, the membership of which has traditionally been limited to persons of one sex and principally to persons of less than nineteen years of age;

(7) Boy or Girl conferences

this section shall not apply to -

(A) any program or activity of the American Legion undertaken in connection with the organization or operation of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference; or

(B) any program or activity of any secondary school or educational institution specifically for -

(i) the promotion of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference; or

(ii) the selection of students to attend any such conference;

(8) Father-son or mother-daughter activities at educational institutions

this section shall not preclude father-son or mother-daughter activities at an educational institution, but if such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided for students of the other sex; and

(9) Institution of higher education scholarship awards in "beauty" pageants

this section shall not apply with respect to any scholarship or other financial assistance awarded by an institution of higher education to any individual because such individual has received such award in any pageant in which the attainment of such award is based upon a combination of factors related to the personal appearance, poise, and talent of such individual and in which participation is limited to individuals of one sex only, so long as such pageant is in compliance with other nondiscrimination provisions of Federal law.

(b) Preferential or disparate treatment because of imbalance in participation or receipt of Federal benefits; statistical evidence of imbalance

Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area: *Provided*, That this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex.

(c)"Educational institution" defined

For purposes of this chapter an educational institution means any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any institution of vocational, professional, or higher education, except that in the case of an educational institution composed of more than one school, college, or department which are administratively separate units, such term means each such school, college, or department.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 901, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 373; Pub. L. 93-568, Sec. 3(a), Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1862; Pub. L. 94-482, title IV, Sec. 412(a), Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2234; Pub. L. 96-88, title III, Sec. 301(a)(1), title V, Sec. 507, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677, 692; Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c), was in the original "this title", meaning title IX of Pub. L. 92-318 which enacted this chapter and amended sections 203 and 213 of Title 29, Labor, and sections 2000c, 2000c-6, 2000c-9, and 2000h-2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Tables.

AMENDMENTS
1986 - Subsec. (a)(6)(A). Pub. L. 99-514 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text. 1976 - Subsec. (a)(6) to (9). Pub. L. 94-482 substituted "this" for "This" in par. (6) and added pars. (7) to (9). 1974 - Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 93-568 added par. (6). EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 412(b) of Pub. L. 94-482 provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 12, 1976]." EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1974 AMENDMENT
Section 3(b) of Pub. L. 93-568 provided that: "The provisions of the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective on, and retroactive to, July 1, 1972." SHORT TITLE OF 1988 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 100-259, Sec. 1, Mar. 22, 1988, 102 Stat. 28, provided that: "This Act [enacting sections 1687 and 1688 of this title and section 2000d-4a of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, amending sections 706 and 794 of Title 29, Labor, and section 6107 of Title 42, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1687 and 1688 of this title] may be cited as the 'Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987'." TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
"Secretary" substituted for "Commissioner" in subsec. (a)(2) pursuant to sections 301(a)(1) and 507 of Pub. L. 96-88, which are classified to sections 3441(a)(1) and 3507 of this title and which transferred all functions of Commissioner of Education to the Secretary of Education. COORDINATION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS
For provisions relating to the coordination of implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this chapter by the Attorney General, see section 1-201(b) of Ex. Ord. No. 12250, Nov. 2, 1980, 45 F.R. 72995, set out as a note under section 2000d-1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. REGULATIONS; NATURE OF PARTICULAR SPORTS: INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES
Pub. L. 93-380, title VIII, Sec. 844, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 612, provided that the Secretary prepare and publish, not more than 30 days after Aug. 21, 1974, proposed regulations implementing the provisions of this chapter regarding prohibition of sex discrimination in federally assisted programs, including reasonable regulations for intercollegiate athletic activities considering the nature of the particular sports. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in sections 1682, 1687 of this title.
Back to top of the page Sec. 1682. Federal administrative enforcement; report to Congressional committees
Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any education program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 1681 of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. No such rule, regulation, or order shall become effective unless and until approved by the President. Compliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section may be effected (1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement, but such termination or refusal shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has been made, and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found, or (2) by any other means authorized by law: *Provided, however*, That no such action shall be taken until the department or agency concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. In the case of any action terminating, or refusing to grant or continue, assistance because of failure to comply with a requirement imposed pursuant to this section, the head of the Federal department or agency shall file with the committees of the House and Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program or activity involved a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action. No such action shall become effective until thirty days have elapsed after the filing of such report.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 902, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 374.) DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
Functions of the President relating to approval of rules, regulations, and orders of general applicability under this section, were delegated to the Attorney General, see section 1-102 of Ex. Ord. No. 12250, Nov. 2, 1980, 45 F.R. 72995, set out as a note under section 2000d-1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in section 1683 of this title.
Back to top of the page Sec. 1683. Judicial review
Any department or agency action taken pursuant to section 1682 of this title shall be subject to such judicial review as may otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by such department or agency on other grounds. In the case of action, not otherwise subject to judicial review, terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance upon a finding of failure to comply with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 1682 of this title, any person aggrieved (including any State or political subdivision thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial review of such action in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, and such action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 701 of that title.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 903, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 374.) CODIFICATION
"'Section 1682 of this title"', where first appearing, was substituted for "section 1002" as conforming to intent of Congress as Pub. L. 92-318 was enacted without any section 1002 and subsequent text refers to "section 902", codified as "section 1682 of this title".
Back to top of the page Sec. 1684. Blindness or visual impairment; prohibition against discrimination
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of blindness or severely impaired vision, be denied admission in any course of study by a recipient of Federal financial assistance for any education program or activity, but nothing herein shall be construed to require any such institution to provide any special services to such person because of his blindness or visual impairment.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 904, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 375.)
Back to top of the page Sec. 1685. Authority under other laws unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall add to or detract from any existing authority with respect to any program or activity under which Federal financial assistance is extended by way of a contract of insurance or guaranty.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 905, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 375.) REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IX of Pub. L. 92-318 which enacted this chapter and amended sections 203 and 213 of Title 29, Labor, and sections 2000c, 2000c-6, 2000c-9, and 2000h-2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Tables.
Back to top of the page Sec. 1686. Interpretation with respect to living facilities
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this chapter, nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any educational institution receiving funds under this Act, from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 907, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 375.) REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IX of Pub. L. 92-318 which enacted this chapter and amended sections 203 and 213 of Title 29, Labor, and sections 2000c, 2000c-6, 2000c-9, and 2000h-2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Tables. This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 92-318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235, as amended, known as the Education Amendments of 1972. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.
Back to top of the page Sec. 1687. Interpretation of "program or activity"
For the purposes of this subchapter, the term "program or activity" and the term "program" mean all of the operations of -

(1)
(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;

(2)
(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or

(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section 198(a)(10) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), system of vocational education, or other school system;

(3)
(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship -

(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or

(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or

(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or

(4) any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3);

any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance, except that such term does not include any operation of an entity which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of section 1681 of this title to such operation would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 908, as added Pub. L. 100-259, Sec. 3(a), Mar. 22, 1988, 102 Stat. 28.) REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IX of Pub. L. 92-318 which enacted this chapter and amended sections 203 and 213 of Title 29, Labor, and sections 2000c, 2000c-6, 2000c-9, and 2000h-2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Tables. FINDINGS OF CONGRESS
Section 2 of Pub. L. 100-259 provided that: "The Congress finds that -
"(1) certain aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly narrowed or cast doubt upon the broad application of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.]; and

"(2) legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and long-standing executive branch interpretation and broad, institution-wide application of those laws as previously administered."
CONSTRUCTION
Section 7 of Pub. L. 100-259 provided that: "Nothing in the amendments made by this Act [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note under section 1681 of this title] shall be construed to extend the application of the Acts so amended [Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318, see Short Title of 1972 Amendment, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq., and Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.] to ultimate beneficiaries of Federal financial assistance excluded from coverage before the enactment of this Act [Mar. 22, 1988]." ABORTION NEUTRALITY
This section not to be construed to force or require any individual or hospital or any other institution, program, or activity receiving Federal funds to perform or pay for an abortion, see section 8 of Pub. L. 100-259, set out as a note under section 1688 of this title.
Back to top of the page Sec. 1688. Neutrality with respect to abortion
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed on any person or individual because such person or individual is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to a legal abortion.

(Pub. L. 92-318, title IX, Sec. 909, as added Pub. L. 100-259, Sec. 3(b), Mar. 22, 1988, 102 Stat. 29.) REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IX of Pub. L. 92-318 which enacted this chapter and amended sections 203 and 213 of Title 29, Labor, and sections 2000c, 2000c-6, 2000c-9, and 2000h-2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Tables. CONSTRUCTION
This section not to be construed to extend application of Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318, to ultimate beneficiaries of Federal financial assistance excluded from coverage before Mar. 22, 1988, see section 7 of Pub. L. 100-259, set out as a note under section 1687 of this title. ABORTION NEUTRALITY
Section 8 of Pub. L. 100-259 provided that: "No provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note under section 1681 of this title] shall be construed to force or require any individual or hospital or any other institution, program, or activity receiving Federal Funds [sic] to perform or pay for an abortion."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Title Ix Of The Education Amendments Of 1972

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TITLE 20 - Education CHAPTER 38 - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR BLINDNESS CHAPTER REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This chapter is referred to in sections 1132f-1, 1232, 3041, 3042 of this title; title 29 sections 206, 1577; title 42 sections 290cc-34, 300w-7, 300x-7, 708, 1988, 2000d-7, 10406.

# data[].attributes.body
Schools must designate at least one employee to coordinate their efforts to comply with Title IX requirements. This coordinator is responsible for overseeing the school's compliance efforts.

Schools must adopt grievance procedures for addressing complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and assault.

Educational institutions must provide equal opportunities for male and female students to participate in athletics, including equitable treatment in provision of equipment and other resources.

Retaliation against individuals who files complaints of sex discrimination is prohibited by Title IX.

# data[].attributes.body
As stated in the MWPISD employee handbook, "In its efforts to promote nondiscrimination and as required by law, Monahans-Wickett-Pyote ISD does not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age, disability, military status, genetic information, or on any other basis prohibited by law," (MWPISD Employee Handbook, 2024).

# data[].attributes.body
The district cannot discriminate on the basis of sex and is required not to discriminate on the basis of sex in its educational programs or activities.

The district has a designated employee that acts as the Title IX coordinator and a different employee as the ADA/Section 504 coordinator.

# data[].attributes.body
As a school principal, ensuring compliance with Equal Opportunity laws is essential for promoting a safe learning environment for all students.

Develop comprehensive policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on protected characteristics.

The importance of having clear policies ensure that all members of the school community understand their rights regarding Equal Opportunity, reducing the risk of violations.

Establish a formal complaint process for reporting incidents of discrimination or other violation of Equal Opportunity laws.

Promptly addressing complaints demonstrates the school's commitment to taking allegations of discrimination seriously and provides a mechanism for victims to seek redress.

Foster open communication and collaboration with all stakeholders to raise awareness of Equal Opportunity laws and promote a culture of equity and inclusion.

Engaging with the broader community helps build trust and strengthens relationships among diverse stakeholders. It also provides opportunities to address concerns proactively.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 2.5 of the Texas Educators' Code of Ethics states, "The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation," (Tex. Educ. Code of Eth., §247.2). By adhering to this ethical standard, educators uphold the same principles enshrined in Equal Opportunity laws. By respecting diverse backgrounds and identities of colleagues, and students, educators contribute to creating an inclusive and equitable work environment. Standard 2.5 also addresses the prohibition of coercion against colleagues, which includes actions that may create a hostile work environment. By fostering a workplace culture that values diversity, educators help prevent violations of Equal Opportunity laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout my career in education, I have encountered various legal and ethical considerations that have shaped my understanding of the application of law in educational contexts. Growing up in a diverse community and attending schools with students from various backgrounds has instilled in me a deep appreciation for diversity and inclusion. I've also engaged in ongoing professional development on legal standards in education. These opportunities have provided me with the skills necessary to navigate complex legal and ethical issues, such as those related to Equal Opportunity laws, special education rights, student privacy, and ethical decision-making.

My understanding of legal and ethical standards has instilled in me a strong sense of responsibility and accountability as an educator. I recognize the significant impact that school leaders have on shaping the educational experiences of students and the importance of upholding legal and ethical principles in all aspects of my work. This sense of responsibility has guided my education goals, motivating me to continually seek opportunities for professional growth to ensure that I am well-equipped to fulfill my role as a future principal with integrity and ethical leadership.

# data[].attributes.body
Develop and regularly update policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on protected characteristics such as race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin.

Provide ongoing professional development opportunities for staff on Equal Opportunity laws, including Title IX and Title VI.

Establish clear channels for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment, or other violations of Equal Opportunity laws.

Conduct prompt investigations of all complaints of discrimination, ensuring a fair and impartial process, and take appropriate corrective action in cases where violations are substantiated.

Foster a culture of diversity and equity within the school community.

Regularly review and assess the school's practices related to Equal Opportunity and legal compliance, seeking feedback from stakeholders and making adjustments as needed.