Petitioner parents filed an action against respondent school board and alleged that it had not complied with judicial orders to desegregate the school system.

The parents maintained that the board had not taken appropriate steps to desegregate the school because no white child had chosen to go the traditionally all black school and only 15 percent of the black children attended the traditionally all white school

The court reversed the decision of the lower court and required the school board to take affirmative action in adopting a plan to desegregate the school system without placing the burden on the parents.

 All parties agreed that the school system failed to achieve the "unitary" school system required by the Equal Protection Clause. The district court stated that efforts should be made to reach a 71 percent white to 29 percent Negro ratio in

the schools, which reflected the system's student population. 

The plan adopted by the district court used zoning, pairing, and grouping techniques in the elementary schools so that schools throughout the system would be from nine percent to 38 percent Negro.

Petitioner law school applicant sued respondents, a law school, university regents, and university officials, claiming race discrimination in the law school's admission policy.

The trial court concluded that the policy was unlawful and granted an injunction. Sitting en banc, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment. The Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court. 

The students, who attended schools within the school system, were of Chinese ancestry and did not speak English. Some of the students received supplemental classes in English, but over half of the students did not receive any instruction. The students initiated a class action against the school system alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

the United States Supreme Court concluded that the school system violated § 601. 

Plaintiff public school students of limited English proficiency sued defendant board of education under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20 U.S.C.S. § 1703, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d, alleging the denial of equal educational opportunity because of the school district's failure to take appropriate action to overcome their language barriers. 

the court found that the school district had not violated the EEOA by a failed implementation.

student filed an action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 against school district and administrator after she was subjected to sexual

harassment from a sports coach employed by the school district.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on the ground that Title IX did not authorize an award of damages.The judgment was reversed and remanded.

Petitioner brought suit against respondent school district, alleging that her fifth-grade daughter was the victim of sexual harassment by another student in her class. Petitioner claimed monetary and injunctive relief under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

The court reversed and remanded judgment dismissing petitioner's action against respondent school district, where "student-on-student," or peer, harassment provided grounds for private cause of action under Title IX.

The children's action sought a declaration of rights and to enjoin the school board from excluding them from the public schools and/or denying them publicly supported education.

The court held that the school board's actions were violative of the Due Process Clause. 

 school district appealed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which interpreted the Education of the Handicapped Act to require that states must maximize the potential of handicapped students. 

The school district argued that the Act did not require this level of services. The Court reversed and remanded the case. 

Appellant school district challenged the order of the United States District Court  which affirmed a state hearing officer's finding that appellee student should be placed in a regular classroom rather than a special education setting, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act.

The court affirmed the order placing appellee student in a regular classroom because the district court did not err in finding that the benefits of a mainstream setting outweighed the benefits of part-time special education. 

The student suffered from a nonverbal learning disability. His parents began the paperwork to enroll him in a private school and sought the development of an individualized education plan (IEP) for the following school year by the public school system. After only five days of attending the public school, his parents removed the student from the public school and enrolled him in private school. The district court denied the student's subsequent claim for reimbursement of the private school's expenses on the ground that his parents acted unreasonably by applying for the private school before contacting the public school system.

The matter was remanded to the district court to make numerous specific factual findings. 

student was paralyzed from the neck down and needed  one-on-one nursing services during school. 

The court affirmed the judgment that petitioner school district was financially responsible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide continuous one-on-one nursing services for respondent student.

Students were suspended without the opportunity to tell their side of the story.

The Court ruled that the students had protected liberty interests in a public education that could not be taken away by suspension without the minimal procedural safeguards of notice and an opportunity to be heard.