Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Joe Hogan, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Mississippi University for Women, et al., Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 653 F.2d 222
Wilbur O. Colom, Columbus, Miss., Robert Rubin, ACLU of Miss., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ed Davis Noble, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before CHARLES CLARK and GEE, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The State of Mississippi asserts that Congress has authorized the existence of single-sex institutions by enacting an exception to Title IX's prohibition of sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance. That exception, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(5), reads: "in regard to admissions, this section shall not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education which is an institution that traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting only students of one sex." This enactment, we are told, is an exercise of Congress's enforcement power under section five of the fourteenth amendment.
Congress may indeed enforce the fourteenth amendment by virtue of section five thereof, but this enactment does not purport to and could not allow states to maintain practices otherwise violative of that amendment.
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED, and no member of this panel nor judge of this Administrative Unit in regular active service having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16; Fifth Circuit Judicial Council Resolution of January 14, 1981), the suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.