The Burger Court Opinion Writing Databasesupremecourtopinions.wustl.edu/files/opinion_pdfs/1983/82-792.pdf · E '84 JAN 16 A11 :02 i c-9 0 Re: 82-792 Grove City College v.Terrel Bell,

The Burger Court OpinionWriting Database

Grove City College v. Bell465 U.S. 555 (1984)

Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington UniversityJames F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. LouisForrest Maltzman, George Washington University

Anprtuto (tiourt of *Anita $tattoIlitasItinotan, p. cc. upig

CHAMBERS OF

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

January 13, 1984

Re: 82-792 Grove City College v. Terrel H. Bell, Secretary of Education

Dear Lewis:

Thank you for the preview of your concurringopinion in this case. I will only concur in the judgment.I agree fully. This is a case that merits a concurringopinion, and I'd like to join. See small suggestions onpages 2 and 3.

Regards,

Mr. Justice Powell

E'84 JAN 16 A11 :02 i

c-9

0Re: 82-792 Grove City College v. Terrel Bell,

Secretary of Education itPZ0=H

g

0

Pt=.1C)HH0Zcn

0t

i1uln7c)HotH

i;uprtitu grand of tits 'Anita 51.tatto

liaelringteit, P. Q. 2L1ig

CHAMBERS OF

THECHMFJUSTICE

January 13, 1984

Dear John:

Please show me as joining only in the judgment.

Retards,

Mr. Justice Stevens

Copies to the Conference

ibuprtna eland of Hit Pattb AtztttoPagitingturt, P. zaPig

CHAMBERS Of

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

January 16, 1984'84 JAN 16 Ail :02

RE: 82-792 Grove City College v. Terrel Bell,Secretary of Education

Dear Byron:tri

0

Please show me as joining only in the judgment.

ards,

Oti

Mr. Justice White


P.5 -L-4

rCO

O

c1,

$3z roast gjinirt of tkt Pita MatesAtsiringtart.p. EriPig

CHAMBERS OF

THE CHIEF JUSTICE January 19, 1984

g,;:,Re: 82-792 Grove City College v. Bell, Secretary Board mo

of Education, Et Al. ==nr=1=P21Dear Lewis: mcm

Please join me in your concurring opinion. 1-3

Regards, no

W 6rrMn1-3r—foz0

oti

Mr. Justice Powell=

Copies to the Conference rora

=H

O

r•-■

eeee

ro

Qlourt of till 'Anita Asters'7ilfzur1iniatatt, zopig

cHAmeEns OFJUSTICE WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.

December 13, 1983

No. 82-792

Grove City College v. Bell

Dear John,

You and I are in dissent in the

above. I'll be happy to try the

dissent.

Sincerely,

Justice Stevens

2arrrnut Quart of UT: Pea AbdoUlan, p. Q. 213g4g

CHAMBERS orJUSTICE WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.

December 29, 198 3

ro

or/

O

No. 82-792

Grove City College v. Bell t-■r-V1

?-31-1

Dear Byron, 0

I agree with most of your opinionin the above but not with Part III. )-3

I' 11 be writing separately on thatquestion.

Sincerely,

ro

O

td

Justice White0

Copies to the Conference ftt

z

cn

To: The Chief JusticeJustice White

tice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

From: Justice Brepnan

Circulated.

Recirculated: o0

r=1t:Jro

REME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GROVE t TY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALFOF ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL

H. BELL, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.?-1

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[February —, 1984]

JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in part and dissenting inpart.

The Court today concludes that Grove City College is "re-ceiving Federal financial assistance" within the meaning ofTitle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U. S. C.§ 1681(a), because a number of its students receive federaleducation grants. As the Court persuasively demonstratesin Part II of its opinion, that conclusion is dictated by "theneed to accord [Title IX] a sweep as broad as its language,"ante, at 8; by reference to the analogous statutory languageand legislative history of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964, ante, at 10; by reliance on the unique postenactmenthistory of Title IX, ante, at 11-12; and by recognition of thestrong congressional intent that there is no "substantive dif-ference between direct institutional assistance and aid re-ceived by a school through its students," ante, at 7, 9, 13, andnn. 12-14, 19. For these same reasons, however, I cannotjoin Part III of the Court's opinion, in which the Court inter-prets the language in Title IX that limits application of thestatute to "any education program or activity" receiving fed-eral monies. By conveniently ignoring these controlling in-dicia of congressional intent, the Court also ignores the pri-mary purposes for which Congress enacted Title IX. Theresult—allowing Title IX coverage for the College's financial

1st DRAFT

No. 82-792

ro

1-11-1cn

$itirreutt Q1 mat of titt Ztiteb fristatur

Atifirittoton, . Q. 211g)

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE December 29, 1983 et

oBetet

Memorandum to the Conference

Re: 82-792 - Grove City College v. Bell

This opinion follows the Conference view that theCourt of Appeals was right in holding that Grove Citywas a recipient of Federal aid and that it must executean Assurance of Compliance, but wrong in holding thatthe College as a whole was the educational programreceiving the aid. The bottom line, however, is toaffirm rather than to affirm in part and reverse inpart, which was the suggestion in Conference. TheDistrict Court issued an injunction against terminatingaid, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded forfurther proceedings consistent with its opinion, which,I take it, would have required the College to execute aproper Assurance or face termination of funds. That isalso the upshot of this draft; hence the suggestion toaffirm even though along the way we differ with theCourt of Appeals in important respects.

eV

0Bc •IO

MCI

=

ty

0aroma

To: The Chief JusticeJustice Brennan

1.4rustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice. StevensJustice O'Connor

From: Justice Whitee DEc 2 1983 ,-z,

Circulated- o==Recirculated- c-)

rriti

1st DRAFT

SUPREME COURT .OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 82-792

GROVE CITY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALFOF ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL

H. BELL, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF5.1"

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. cnc-i

Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of1972, Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), pro-hibits sex discrimination in "any education program or activ-ity receiving Federal financial assistance," 1 and § 902 directsagencies awarding most types of assistance to promulgate v3regulations to ensure that recipients adhere to that prohi-bition. Compliance with departmental regulations may be •secured by termination of assistance "to the particular pro-gram,

c-*1-4 or part thereof, in which . . . noncompliance has been

. . . found" or by "any other means authorized by law."§902, 20 U. S. C. § 1682.2 0-4

Section 901(a), 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), provides, in pertinent part:"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded 0

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to dis-crimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal fi-nancial assistance . . . ." ccnnNine statutory exemptions, none of which is relevant to the disposition ofthis case, follow. See §§ 901(a)(1)-(9), 20 U. S. C. §§1681(a)(1)-(9).

Section 902, 20 U. S. C. § 1682, provides:"Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend

Federal financial assistance to any education program or activity, by wayof grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, isauthorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section [901] with re-spect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of

1-3

0ra

0z

c")

cn

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[January —, 1984]

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

From: Justice White

, ...._,..; 7, ;:t ,..,, --C: ,k..,n LIT.M

L._ h- .-',.1.:Circulated-

lk Recirculated. JAN 5

c)tl=0

1584

t4ti

zot

2nd DRAFT z

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES p-i

enNo. 82-792 0

t'''C21

GROVE CITY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF "4n

OF ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL 0I-1

H. BELL, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL. c.nz

0ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF ,--.1.


[January —, 1984]

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.cn

Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of1972, Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), pro-hibits sex discrimination in "any education program or activ- )-3ity receiving Federal financial assistance," 1 and § 902 directs ■-■agencies awarding most types of assistance to promulgateregulations to ensure that recipients adhere to that prohi- 1-1

bition. Compliance with departmental regulations may besecured by termination of assistance "to the particular pro-gram, or part thereof, in which . . . noncompliance has been tt. . . found" or by "any other means authorized by law."§ 902, 20 U. S. C. § 1682.2

Section 901(a), 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), provides, in pertinent part: PTI"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 dis-crimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal fi-nancial assistance . . . ." cnNine statutory exemptions, none of which is relevant to the disposition ofthis case, follow. See §§ 901(a)(1)–(9), 20 U. S. C. §§ 1681(a)(1)–(9).



RECTM17nSUP;'7'

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

From: Justice WhiteStylistic changes_ Circulated

14 — Pt94 ,!A!'l la4-1d PI;DI?r ? 13- JAN 1 3 1934 aRecirculated . ==nCrlCV

3rd DRAFT PtxioSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

=,-.3g

No. 82-792 nor,r,

GROVE CITY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF r40

OF ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL ,--30-4

H. BELL, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.0zcn

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF tiAPPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[January —, 1984] tzl

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of cn

1972, Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), pro-hibits

pc)1-4 sex discrimination in "any education program or activ-

ity receiving Federal financial assistance," and § 902 directsagencies awarding most types of assistance to promulgateregulations to ensure that recipients adhere to that prohi- cn

bition. Compliance with departmental regulations may besecured by termination of assistance "to the particular pro- -gram, or part thereof, in which . . : noncompliance has been )-1. . . found" or by "any other means authorized by law."§ 902, 20 U. S. C. § 1682.2

0.<

Section 901(a), 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), provides, in pertinent part:"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 dis-crimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal fi-nancial assistance . . . ."Nine statutory exemptions, none of which is relevant to the disposition of cnthis case, follow. See §§ 901(a)(1)–(9), 20 U. S. C. §§1681(a)(1)–(9).



(S

500.ft

106ghwnnt(ilmicfliteAtitettgitstor

Thuyilinotou, /I. 2optg

CHAMBERS OF

March 6, 1984JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE

MEMORANDUM TO THE CONFERENCE

Re: Cases held for Grove City College v. Bell, No. 82-792

Two cases were being held for Grove City:

(1) Hillsdale College v. Dept. of Education, No. 82-1538:

Petitioner is a private coeducational college that acceptsno direct federal or state assistance. Approximately 1/4 of itsstudents receive federal aid under various loan or grantprograms. Petitioner refused to execute an Assurance ofCompliance, and respondent instituted administrative enforcementproceedings. Respondent's Reviewing authority agreed withrespondent that petitioner was required to execute an assurance,but CA6 reversed. It agreed with respondent that petitioner wasa recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of5901 of Title IX because its students received federal loans andgrants, but concluded that the relevant "program or activity" isthe federal loan and grant program for students. CA6 furtherheld that the Assurance of Compliance regulation was invalid asapplied since it has been interpreted to cover the entire College./and is not limited to the student loan and grant program.

The Court's decision in Grove City disposes of the contentionthat no program or activity operated by petitioner receivesfederal financial assistance for purposes of Title IX. Grove City also rejected the conclusion reached by CA6 regarding thevalidity of the Assurance of Compliance regulation. Indetermining which of petitioner's programs are covered by TitleIX, it is possible to point to two differences between this caseand Grove City. First, petitioner's students receive federal

/ assistance under several programs not involved in Grove City.Second, petitioner participates in the BEOG program through theRegular Disbursement System and participates in other programsthat require it to determine students' eligibility forassistance. Neither of these differences should affect theoutcome. One other point is worth mentioning: To the extentthat CA6 held that the relevant program was limited to thefederal student-aid programs, its decision is inconsistent withn.21 of the Court's opinion in Grove City. It is not clear thatCA6 intended this result, but its opinion is ambiguous.

I recommend GVR.

.Sitprtott (Court of tilt Priter ,OtattoR. zopig

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE THU RGOOD MARS HALL

ro

ty=

January 3, 1984

ro

Hxx

Re: No. 82-792-Grove City College v. Bell

Dear Byron:

I await further writing.

Sincerely,

0e4T .M.

=

ro

Justice White 1-1

cc: The Conference

0ro

v.)

oro

aaalla a Janaraaaaa.a. Yaaaina.

Altprentt (Court tltt luti tes Atatts

Vagfiringtort, p. zugng

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL

February 23, 1984

Re: No. 82-792-Grove City College v. Bell

Dear Bill:

Please join me in your opinion.

Sincerely,

T .M.

Justice Brennan

cc: The Conference

Suprrnte (cr rrurt of tftt 2artiteb ,fttters

pastriatatan, (c. 2rrg43CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN December 30, 1983

Re: No. 82-792 - Grove City College v. Bell

Dear Byron:0

Please join me.

Sincerely, n

•

c

ro

4/41'4\

=cn

7:1

ro0-3

Justice White

cc: The Conferenceoz

2iitpreutt tgintrt of Hit `Attiter tars

asitingtAnt, 113 - (4. =Pig

IMAM OCRS Or

JUSTICE LEWIS POWELL, JR.

December 30, 1983 .71

=82-792 GROVE CITY COLLEGE v. BELL

Hxx

Dear Byron:

I join your opinion with reluctance because, giventhe language and legislative history of the statute, I think 0your opinion decides the case correctly.

Unless I can suppress my strong inclination to ft'

write separately and express my disapproval of this type of =federal intrusion, I may add a few words in concurrence.

Sincerely,

=1-4

Justice White

lfp/ss 0-1m

cc: The Conference E.40=3

0

January 13, 1984

PERSONAL

82-792 Grove City v. Bell

Dear Chief:

I have joined the opinion for the Court in thiscase, but did so reluctantly.

It seems to me that the Department of Educationdisplayed uncommonly poor judgment in seeking to compel - bywhat turned out to be protracted litigation - this collegeto sign an assurance that it would comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX. It is conceded thatthe college had a uniquely exemplary record of nondiscrimi-nation.

I also would have thought that the Solicitor Gen-eral, or perhaps the Attorney General, would have decidednot to continue pressing this matter.

But the case is here, and we must decide itaccording to the law. I am considering a brief concurringopinion, and enclose a copy that I have not circulated.would like to have the benefit of your judgment as to wheth-er any purpose is served by expressing views along the linesof my draft.

Although I think you have the best record withrespect to unnecessary concurring opinions, I also try toexercise a good deal of restraint. Entirely too many ofthem are circulated.

will await your views with interest.

Sincerely,

The Chief Justice

lfp/ss

01/14

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

From: Justice Powell

Circulated: JA N 100

Recirculated. '84 JAN 16 All :02

1st DRAFT

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 82-792




[January —, 1984]

JUSTICE POWELL, concurring.As I agree that the holding in this case is dictated by the

language and legislative history of Title IX, and the Regula-tions of the Department of Education, I join the Court's deci-sion. I do so reluctantly and write briefly to record my viewthat the case is an unedifying example of overzealousness onthe part of the Federal Government.

Grove City College (Grove City) may be unique among col-leges in our country; certainly there are few others like it.Founded more than a century ago in 1876, Grove City is anindependent, coeducational liberal arts college. It describesitself as having "both a Christian world view and a freedomphilosophy," perceiving these as "interrelated." Joint Ap-pendix, at A-22. At the time of this suit, it had about 2,200students and tuition was suprisingly low for a private col-lege.' Some 140 of the College's students were receivingBasic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs), 2 and 342had obtained Guaranteed Student Loans (GSLs). 3 Thegrants were made directly to the students through the De-

1 Yearly tuition for 1983 for fees, room, and board was $4270. Petition-er's Brief at 3, n. 2.

'Grove City College v. Bell, 500 F. Supp. 253, 259 (WD Pa. 1980).'Grove City College, supra, 500 F. Supp., at 259.

01/19

'84 JAN 23 A9 :52

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

From: Justice Powell

Circulated-

Recirculate • JAN 2 0 1984

2nd DRAFT


No. 82-792




/[January —, 1984]

JUSTICE POWELL, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER andJUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring.

As I agree that the holding in this case is dictated by thelanguage and legislative history of Title IX, and the Regula-tions of the Department of Education, I join the Court's deci-sion. I do so reluctantly and write briefly to record my viewthat the case is an unedifying example of overzealousness onthe part of the Federal Government.

Grove City College (Grove City) may be unique among col-leges in our country; certainly there are few others like it.Founded more than a century ago in 1876, Grove City is anindependent, coeducational liberal arts college. It describesitself as having "both a Christian world view and a freedomphilosophy," perceiving these as "interrelated." Joint Ap-pendix, at A-22. At the time of this suit, it had about 2,200students and tuition was suprisingly low for a private col-lege.' Some 140 of the College's students were receivingBasic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs), 2 and 342had obtained Guaranteed Student Loans (GSLs). 3 Thegrants were made directly to the students through the De-

Yearly tuition for 1983 for fees, room, and board was $4270. Petition-er's Brief at 3, n. 2.

= Grove City College v. Bell, 500 F. Supp. 253, 259 (WD Pa. 1980).'Grove City College, supra, 500 F. Supp., at 259.

Ouprnitt gjirttrt tf tkt likrittb )1brttilearal rirtgicat. P. Qr. 2.11P4

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

December 30, 1983

Re: No. 82-792 Grove City College v. Bell

Dear Byron:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

Justice White

cc: The Conference

OWO,

O0va

.;$1xprence wort u f lite Anifer Otattotoltington, p. (4. 20A)kg

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS

January 5, 1984

Re: 82-792 - Grove City College v. Bell

Dear Bill:

This is a copy of what I have just sent to theprinter.

Respectfully,

Justice Brennan

Attachment

January 5, 1984

[2$0792i;2$0792if]

82-792 - Grove City College v. Bell

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring in the

result.

For two reasons, I am unable to joint part III of the

Court's opinion. First, it is advisory opinion unnecessary to

today's decision, and second, the advice is predicated on

speculation rather than evidence.

The controverted issue in this litigation is whether Grove

City College may be required to execute the "Assurance of

Compliance with Title IX" tendered to it by the Secretary in

order to continue receiving the benefits of the federal financial

assistance provided by the BEOG program. The Court of Appeals

affirmed the District Court's decision that Grove City is a

"recipient" of federal financial assistance, and reversed its

decision that the Secretary could not terminate federal financial

assistance unless Grove City executed the Assurance. The Court

today holds (in part II of its opinion) that Grove City is a

recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of

Title IX, and (in part IV) that Grove City must execute the

Assurance of Compliance in order to continue receiving that

assistance. These holdings are fully sufficient to sustain the

judgment the Court reviews, as the Court acknowledges by

0

0.

eD1.)

0011

0

tv.

0

0

C.)

aracsco

col

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice O'Connor

From: Justice Stevens

Circulated . 1,01 e *gzi

Recirculated• oting

1st DRAFT it70ox

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES H

MNo. 82-792 norr

GROVE CITY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF rzlnOF ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL ,i/-4

H. BELL, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL.ozv.:

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 00.4


[January —, 1984]

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring inthe result. c/5

For two reasons, I am unable to joint part III of theCourt's opinion. First, it is)advisory opinion unnecessary to mo

4-3

today's decision, and second, the advice is predicated onspeculation rather than evidence.

The controverted issue in this litigation is whether GroveCity College may be required to execute the "Assurance of

)-4

Compliance with Title IX" tendered to it by the Secretary in -order to continue receiving the benefits of the federal finan-cial assistance provided by the BEOG program. The Courtof Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision that GroveCity is a "recipient" of federal financial assistance, and re- 0versed its decision that the Secretary could not terminatefederal financial assistance unless Grove City executed theAssurance. The Court today holds (in part II of its opinion)that Grove City is a recipient of federal financial assistancewithin the meaning of Title IX, and (in part IV) that GroveCity must execute the Assurance of Compliance in order tocontinue receiving that assistance. These holdings are fullysufficient to sustain the judgment the Court reviews, as theCourt acknowledges by affirming that judgment.

In part III of its opinion, the Court holds that Grove City isnot required to refrain from discrimination on the basis of sex

Ple■ASLA

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice O'Connor

, rSUPTE ^ 7?- From: Justice StevensJUST

'84 JAN 16 All :02

Circulated- P,-;:lRecirculated- _JAN 1' 6 1984 oticnmtl

2nd DRAFT 0:1

1-3

No. 82-792

t-GROVE CITY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF

)-3OF ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL


aON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 04


[January —, 1984]

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring inthe result.

For two reasons, I am unable to joint part III of theCourt's opinion. First, it is an advisory opinion unnecessaryto today's decision, and second, the advice is predicated onspeculation rather than evidence.

The controverted issue in this litigation is whether GroveCity College may be required to execute the "Assurance of -Compliance with Title IX" tendered to it by the Secretary inorder to continue receiving the benefits of the federal finan-cial assistance provided by the BEOG program. The Courtof Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision that GroveCity is a "recipient" of federal financial assistance, and re-versed

"21

its decision that the Secretary could not terminatefederal financial assistance because Grove City refused to ex-ecute the Assurance. The Court today holds (in part II of itsopinion) that Grove City is a recipient of federal financial as-sistance within the meaning of Title IX, and (in part IV) thatGrove City must execute the Assurance of Compliance inorder to continue receiving that assistance. These holdingsare fully sufficient to sustain the judgment the Court re-views, as the Court acknowledges by affirming that judg-ment.


To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice TliteJustice 7:JusticeJustice :*eJusticeJustice 0' :,,oa:.eL.

From: Justice Sta%:nsro

Circulated: 0

Recirculated :FE 8 2 7 1984


ro

Hxx

No. 82-792 0t-

GROVE CITY COLLEGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALFOF. ITS STUDENTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERREL


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF tiAPPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[February 28, 1984]

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring inthe result.

For two reasons, I am unable to joint part III of theCourt's opinion. First, it is an advisory opinion unnecessaryto today's decision, and second, the advice is predicated onspeculation rather than evidence. 1-4

The controverted issue in this litigation is whether Grove oCity College may be required to execute the "Assurance ofCompliance with Title IX" tendered to it by the Secretary in r-■"4order to continue receiving the benefits of the federal fman-cial assistance provided by the BEOG program. The Courtof Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision that GroveCity is a "recipient" of federal financial assistance, and re-versed

,21

its decision that the Secretary could not terminate 0federal financial assistance because Grove City refused to ex-ecute the Assurance. The Court today holds (in part II of itsopinion) that Grove City is a recipient of federal financial as-sistance within the meaning of Title IX, and (in part IV) thatGrove City must execute the Assurance of Compliance inorder to continue receiving that assistance. These holdingsare fully sufficient to sustain the judgment the Court re-views, as the Court acknowledges by affirming that judg-ment.

isttrrtutt (Court of tilt Matto

paoltirtatan,p.(4. 2rrpig

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

January 3, 1984

No. 82-792 Grove City College v. Bell

Dear Byron,

Please join me in your opinion.

Sincerely,

Justice White


Auprtutt Qiintrt a tilt littrittit Ofattoluttottingtint,33. Q. 2.0pkg

CHAMBERS OF


January 16, 1984 '84 JAN 17 A10 :01


Dear Lewis,

Please join me in your concurring opinion.

Sincerely,

Justice Powell


.51141rtute (qourf tike Pater Matt,Paofrimitott,p.(q. 20pkg

January 16, 1984


Dear Lewis,

Please join me in your concurring opinion.

Sincerely,

Justice Powell


CHAMBERS OF


Documents

The Burger Court Opinion Writing Databasesupremecourtopinions.wustl.edu/files/opinion_pdfs/1983/82-792.pdf · E '84 JAN 16 A11 :02 i c-9 0 Re: 82-792 Grove City College v.Terrel Bell,