Opinion ID: 201292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Related Federal Claims

Text: The plaintiffs also advance several statutory equal protection claims, contending that the Lynn Plan violates, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983,16 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.17 Our resolution of the constitutional equal protection challenge controls those claims. Title VI 'proscribe[s] only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause.' Alexander v. Sandoval 532 U.S. 275, 280-281 (2001) (quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 287 (Powell, J.)). Courts have also treated the bar on racial discrimination imposed by § 1981 and § 1983 as coextensive with the protections of the Equal Protection Clause. See Mescall v. Burrus, 16 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that [a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right . . . to the full and equal benefit of all laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action based on the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State. 17 Title VI forbids racial discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. -44- 603 F.2d 1266, 1271 (7th Cir. 1979) (The relationships of §§ 1981 and 1983 to the Fourteenth Amendment are so close . . . that we believe the use of each section must be guided by the principles announced by the Supreme Court for application of the Fourteenth Amendment to discrimination cases.); see also Anderson, 375 F.3d at 77 n.7 (concluding that plaintiffs' claims under Title VI, § 1981 and § 1983 turn on the resolution of the equal protection claim). The district court was therefore correct in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to federal statutory relief.