# data[].attributes.body
Edward H. Steinman – representing the petitioners

Thomas M. O’Connor – arguing for the opposition

San Francisco school system - sued by non English-speaking students

Assistant Attorney General Pottinger - argued for the US

Mr. Justice Douglass – delivered opinion of the court

# data[].attributes.body
The San Francisco school system did not teach English to 1,800 Chinese students who did not speak English, denying them the opportunity to participate in a public educational program. Ten years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a non English-speaking student brought on the case due to unequal learning opportunities.

# data[].attributes.body
The supreme court case Lau v. Nicholas created equality in California school systems and ensured their 14th amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The San Francisco school system is denied the non English students' 14th amendment right because they discriminated against them by race. These students were denied the opportunity to obtain the education that was comparable to other students who had an understanding of English.

# data[].attributes.body
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court decision gave foreign students an opportunity to break the language barrier, and participate in the english classes. Also, it gave the opportunity to students with a language barrier to bridge the gap, and gave all students an opportunity to participate in required english classes.

# data[].attributes.body
Argued: December 10, 1973    Decided: January 21, 1974

# data[].attributes.body
"It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program - all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the regulations."