Amy Cohen v. Brown University

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Title IX and the applicable regulation and policy interpretation do not violate the Equal Protection Clause
• holding that Title IX and the applicable regulation and policy interpretation do not violate the Equal Protection Clause
• recognizing that record of the floor debate on Restoration Act “leaves little doubt that the enactment was aimed, in part, at creating a more level playing field for female athletes”
• holding that the 1979 Policy Interpretation “stands upon a plausible, if not inevitable, reading of Title IX”
• holding that even if a university satisfies the scholarship and “other resources” tests, it can still violate Title IX if its participation is not proportional
• holding that the defendant institution could not demonstrate a history of program expansion where there was “impressive growth” in the 1970s but no additional opportunities added over the next two decades

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).