Difference between revisions of "Alexander v. Choate"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Jameson (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly)
(top: Spelling, Grammar, and General Cleanup)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In ''Alexander v. Choate'', 469 U.S. 287, 293 (1985), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that "Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1954] itself directly reaches only instances of intentional discrimination."
+
In '''''Alexander v. Choate''''', 469 U.S. 287, 293 (1985), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that "Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1954] itself directly reaches only instances of intentional discrimination."
  
 
Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.  The facts arose from Tennessee proposed reducing the number of annual days of inpatient hospital care covered by its state Medicaid program. The question presented was whether the effect upon the handicapped that this reduction will have is cognizable under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or its implementing regulations. The Court held that it is not.
 
Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.  The facts arose from Tennessee proposed reducing the number of annual days of inpatient hospital care covered by its state Medicaid program. The question presented was whether the effect upon the handicapped that this reduction will have is cognizable under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or its implementing regulations. The Court held that it is not.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
+
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Latest revision as of 08:43, 1 July 2016

In Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1954] itself directly reaches only instances of intentional discrimination."

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion for the unanimous court. The facts arose from Tennessee proposed reducing the number of annual days of inpatient hospital care covered by its state Medicaid program. The question presented was whether the effect upon the handicapped that this reduction will have is cognizable under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or its implementing regulations. The Court held that it is not.