Lau v.

Nichols

Estefania Caro

Introduction to Special Education 203

Landmark Court Case

Tues. February 25, 2020

 Caro 1

Lau v. Nichols

The Supreme Court case ruling of Lau v. Nichols in 1974 helped change the lives of

many bilingual students in the United States. The San Francisco, California school system was

not providing any English Language instruction to about 1,800 Chinese students who did not

speak English (“LAU v. NICHOLS”). This denied them the opportunity to receive a fair and

equal education in the United States. Students were also unable to graduate and receive a high

school diploma if they did not meet the standard proficiency levels of English. The students

claimed that the San Francisco Unified School District violated their rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment’s equal protection clause and Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which

prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal

financial assistance (Bon).

Edward H. Steinman, a public interest lawyer, reached out to the parents of Kinney

Kinmon Lau and other Chinese-American parents to file a class action lawsuit against the San

Francisco School Board (Bruemmer). In 1973, the District Court ruled in favor of the school

district and The Court of Appeals affirmed that there was no violation of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the non-English-

speaking students received the same education that was available to all the other students in the

school district. “The court further explained that there were neither constitutional nor statutory

mandates requiring the school district to provide special remedial programs to students who were

disadvantaged” (Bon).

However, the case was then argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 10,

1973. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “providing all students with the same facilities and

curriculum does not mean equal treatment, because non-English-speaking students are
 Caro 2

effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (Bon). The Court decided on January 21,

1974 that the school system's failure to provide supplemental English language instruction to

non-English-speaking students constituted a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Lau v. Nichols was an important landmark case because the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling

applied to all school districts funded or not. It required the school system to implement bilingual

education programs for English Language Learners (ELLs). Allison Bruemmer explains in the

“Lau v. Nichols” YouTube video that, “Proper methods and procedures were implemented to

identify and evaluate ELLs skills in the classroom and deciding when ELLs were ready for

general ed classrooms”. Elementary schools were also required to provide ELL students with

subject matter instruction in their first language (Bruemmer). This keeps students from falling

behind throughout the school year because they are still learning the same content their

classmates are learning just in a different language.

Students now have the opportunity to receive a fair and equal education in any school

district. No matter the race, color, or national origin of the student, the school district must help

and provide all these ELL students with bilingual education programs and the proper subject

content in their own language so they do not fall behind and are able to graduate with their

classmates. Lau v. Nichols changed many non-Native English speaking students’ lives in the

United States.
 Caro 3

Works Cited

Allison Bruemmer. “Lau v. Nichols, Activity 2.” YouTube, uploaded by Allison Bruemmer, 18

June 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7eUeXqGDG0. Accessed 24 Feb. 2020.

Bon, Susan C. “Lau v. Nichols.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 14

Jan. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/Lau-v-Nichols. Accessed 23 Feb 2020.

“LAU v. NICHOLS.” FindLaw, www.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/414/563.html.

Accessed 21 Feb. 2020.