InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Lau et al. v. Nichols et al.

The Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

414 U.S. 563 · No. 72-6520 · 1973 term · Burger Court

Decided Jan 21, 1974 · argued Dec 10, 1973

Civil rights · Desegregation, schools

Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity

Majority opinion: William Douglas

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed and remanded. Lau et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Lau et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that since non-English speakers were denied a meaningful education, the disparate impact caused by the school policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the case was remanded to the District Court "for the fashioning of appropriate relief".

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1973 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBrennanMarshallStewartWhitePowellBlackmunBurgerRehnquist

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Lau et al.Racial or ethnic minority
Respondent
Nichols et al.Local school district or board of education (California)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI)
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jan 21, 1974DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Lau et al. won.
  2. Dec 10, 1973ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

45 other argued cases since 1946 on desegregation, schools, newest first.

  1. Thomas C. Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction v. Miriam Flores et al.557 U.S. 433Jun 25, 2009 · 557 U.S. 433Civil rights5–45–4 band

  2. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.551 U.S. 701Jun 28, 2007 · 551 U.S. 701Civil rights5–45–4 band

  3. Missouri, et al. v. Kalima Jenkins, et al.515 U.S. 70Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 70Civil rights5–45–4 band

  4. United States v. Kirk Fordice, Governor of Mississippi, et al.505 U.S. 717Jun 26, 1992 · 505 U.S. 717Civil rights8–18–1 band

  5. Robert R. Freeman, et al. v. Willie Eugene Pitts, et al.Landmark503 U.S. 467Mar 31, 1992 · 503 U.S. 467Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  6. Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent School District No. 89, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma v. Robert L. Dowell et al.498 U.S. 237Jan 15, 1991 · 498 U.S. 237Civil rights5–36–3 band
  7. Missouri et al. v. Jenkins et al.495 U.S. 33Apr 18, 1990 · 495 U.S. 33Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  8. Bob Jones University v. United States461 U.S. 574May 24, 1983 · 461 U.S. 574Civil rights8–18–1 band

  9. Crawford et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles et al.458 U.S. 527Jun 30, 1982 · 458 U.S. 527Civil rights8–18–1 band
  10. Washington et al. v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.458 U.S. 457Jun 30, 1982 · 458 U.S. 457Civil rights5–45–4 band
  11. Board of Education of the City School District of New York et al. v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.444 U.S. 130Nov 28, 1979 · 444 U.S. 130Civil rights6–36–3 band
  12. Dayton Board of Education et al. v. Brinkman et al.443 U.S. 526Jul 2, 1979 · 443 U.S. 526Civil rights5–45–4 band
  13. Columbus Board of Education et al. v. Penick et al.443 U.S. 449Jul 2, 1979 · 443 U.S. 449Civil rights7–27–2 band
  14. Dayton Board of Education et al. v. Brinkman et al.433 U.S. 406Jun 27, 1977 · 433 U.S. 406Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  15. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.433 U.S. 267Jun 27, 1977 · 433 U.S. 267Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Runyon et ux., dba Bobbe's School v. McCrary et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity427 U.S. 160Jun 25, 1976 · 427 U.S. 160Civil rights7–27–2 band

  17. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.418 U.S. 717Jul 25, 1974 · 418 U.S. 717Civil rights5–45–4 band

  18. Gilmore et al. v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, et al.417 U.S. 556Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 556Civil rights5–45–4 band
  19. Norwood et al. v. Harrison et al.413 U.S. 455Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 455Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  20. Keyes et al. v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, et al.413 U.S. 189Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 189Civil rights7–18–1 band

  21. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al.412 U.S. 92May 21, 1973 · 412 U.S. 92Civil rights4–45–4 band
  22. United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al.407 U.S. 484Jun 22, 1972 · 407 U.S. 484Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  23. Wright et al. v. Council of the City of Emporia et al.407 U.S. 451Jun 22, 1972 · 407 U.S. 451Civil rights5–45–4 band
  24. North Carolina State Board of Education et al. v. Swann et al.402 U.S. 43Apr 20, 1971 · 402 U.S. 43Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  25. McDaniel, Superintendent of Schools, et al. v. Barresi et al.402 U.S. 39Apr 20, 1971 · 402 U.S. 39Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  26. Davis et al. v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County et al.402 U.S. 33Apr 20, 1971 · 402 U.S. 33Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  27. Swann et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity402 U.S. 1Apr 20, 1971 · 402 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  28. Alexander et al. v. Holmes County Board of Education et al.396 U.S. 19Oct 29, 1969 · 396 U.S. 19Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  29. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education et al.395 U.S. 225Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 225Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  30. Monroe et al. v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson et al.391 U.S. 450May 27, 1968 · 391 U.S. 450Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  31. Raney et al. v. Board of Education of the Gould School District et al.391 U.S. 443May 27, 1968 · 391 U.S. 443Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  32. Green et al. v. County School Board of New Kent County et al.Landmark391 U.S. 430May 27, 1968 · 391 U.S. 430Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  33. Calhoun et al. v. Latimer et al.377 U.S. 263May 25, 1964 · 377 U.S. 263Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  34. Griffin et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County et al.377 U.S. 218May 25, 1964 · 377 U.S. 218Civil rights7–27–2 band

  35. Goss et al. v. Board of Education of Knoxville, Tennessee, et al.373 U.S. 683Jun 3, 1963 · 373 U.S. 683Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  36. McNeese et al. v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187, Cahokia, Illinois, et al.373 U.S. 668Jun 3, 1963 · 373 U.S. 668Civil rights8–18–1 band
  37. Cooper et al., Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock, Arkansas, Independent School District, et al. v. Aaron et al.Landmark · Federalism358 U.S. 1Sep 12, 1958 · 358 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  38. Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock, Arkansas, Independent School District, et al.358 U.S. 27Sep 12, 1958 · 358 U.S. 27Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  39. Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.Landmark349 U.S. 294May 31, 1955 · 349 U.S. 294Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  40. Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity347 U.S. 497May 17, 1954 · 347 U.S. 497Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  41. Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity347 U.S. 483May 17, 1954 · 347 U.S. 483Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  42. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education et al.339 U.S. 637Jun 5, 1950 · 339 U.S. 637Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  43. Sweatt v. Painter et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity339 U.S. 629Jun 5, 1950 · 339 U.S. 629Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  44. Fisher v. Hurst, Chief Justice, et al.333 U.S. 147Feb 16, 1948 · 333 U.S. 147Civil rights7–27–2 band
  45. Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma et al.332 U.S. 631Jan 12, 1948 · 332 U.S. 631Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.