Court Opinion

ID: 9429333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:27.517655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:18.947096
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider whether proof of discriminatory intent is required to establish a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d et seq. For the reasons outlined below, I agree with Justice White that proof of discriminatory animus should not be required. Unlike Justice White, however, I believe that compensatory relief may be awarded to private Title VI plaintiffs in the absence of proof of discriminatory animus. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
*616The question presented by the petition for certiorari is whether a Title VI plaintiff can obtain relief upon proof that a non-job-related employment requirement has a discriminatory effect on minority applicants, or must also prove discriminatory intent. Pet. for Cert. i. This issue has divided the Courts of Appeals.1 To resolve it we must decide whether our decision in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 (1974), which held that proof of discriminatory impact is sufficient to establish a violation of Title VI, must be overruled in light of the views subsequently expressed by five Justices in University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978).
In Lau v. Nichols, this Court held that the San Francisco school system had violated Title VI by failing to provide supplemental language instruction to children of Chinese ancestry who did not speak English. The plaintiffs in Lau did not show that the officials in charge of the school system had intended to discriminate against students of Chinese ancestry. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448, 479 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C. J., joined by White and Powell, JJ.). Because the failure to provide supplemental instruction had a discriminatory impact, this Court nevertheless concluded that the school system had violated Title VI. Looking to departmental regulations for guidance, the Court emphasized that Title VI bars programs that have a discriminatory “effect even though no purposeful design is present.” 414 U. S., at 568 (emphasis in original).
*617In University of California Regents v. Bakke, supra, five Justices concluded that Title VI does not prohibit a recipient of federal aid from taking race into account in an affirmative-action program designed to eradicate the vestiges of past discrimination. Since the special admissions program challenged in Bakke deliberately used racial criteria, that case did not require consideration of whether proof of discriminatory intent is necessary to establish a violation of Title VI. The only question posed was whether a conceded resort to race was permissible as a means of eliminating the effects of past discrimination. However, in reaching the conclusion that the consideration of race in an affirmative-action program does not violate Title VI, we relied in part on our view that Title Vi’s proscription of racial discrimination is coextensive with that of the Equal Protection Clause. 438 U. S., at 287 (opinion of Powell, J.); id., at 328 (opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.). Because the Equal Protection Clause has been held to prohibit only intentional discrimination, Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 238-248 (1976), the view we expressed in Bakke calls into question the holding in Lau v. Nichols that proof of discriminatory impact is sufficient to establish a violation of Title VI.2
If we were required to decide the issue presented by this case in the absence of a persuasive administrative interpretation of the statute, I would hold, in accordance with the view expressed in Bakke, that Title VI requires proof of discriminatory intent, even though this holding would entail overruling Lau v. Nichols. But the case comes to us against the background of administrative regulations that have uniformly and consistently interpreted the statute to prohibit *618programs that have a discriminatory impact and that cannot be justified on nondiscriminatory grounds. As Justice Frankfurter once observed, the doctrine of stare decisis is not “an imprisonment of reason.” United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., 348 U. S. 236, 249 (1955) (dissenting opinion). The broad view expressed in Bakke, which was not necessary to the decision in that case, does not foreclose consideration of whether this longstanding administrative interpretation of the statute is a reasonable one which should be followed by this Court.
Shortly after the enactment of Title VI, a Presidential task force produced model Title VI enforcement regulations specifying that recipients of federal funds not use “criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination.” 45 CFR § 80.3(b)(2) (1964) (emphasis added).3 The Justice Department, which had helped draft the language of Title VI,4 participated heavily in preparing the regulations.5 Seven federal agencies and departments carrying out the mandate of Title VI soon promulgated regulations that applied a disparate-impact or “effects” test. See 29 Fed. Reg. 16274-16305 (1964). As a contemporaneous construction of a statute by those charged with setting the law in motion, these regulations deserve substantial respect in determining the meaning of Title VI. Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U. S. 443, 450 (1978); Power Reactor Development Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 408 (1961); Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315 (1933). See also Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 192 (1969) (interpretation of a statute by administrators who participated in drafting it carries “most weight”). When an administrative agency has exercised its judgment *619with respect to an issue that is not clearly resolved by the language and purposes of the statute it is statutorily mandated to enforce, this Court will accord due consideration to the views of the agency. Indeed, in Bakke itself, the opinion of four Justices which I coauthored stressed that agency regulations authorizing and in some cases requiring affirmative-action programs6 were “entitled to considerable deference in construing Title VI.” 438 U. S., at 342 (Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.).
Following the initial promulgation of regulations adopting an impact standard, every Cabinet Department and about 40 federal agencies adopted standards interpreting Title VI to bar programs with a discriminatory impact.7 The statute has been uniformly and consistently so construed by the agencies responsible for its enforcement for nearly two decades. Our cases make clear that a longstanding and consistent administrative interpretation of a statute is entitled to special weight. NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 274-275 (1974); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance *620Co., 409 U. S. 205, 210 (1972); United States v. Bergh, 352 U. S. 40, 46-47 (1956).
It is also significant that this administrative interpretation of Title VI has never been altered by Congress, despite its awareness of the interpretation. In 1966, the House of Representatives defeated a proposal to alter Title VI to prohibit only intentional discrimination, and the proposal never emerged from committee in the Senate.8 In the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1969, Congress directed that guidelines and criteria established under Title VI dealing with de jure and de facto school segregation be applied uniformly across the country regardless of the origin or cause of such segregation. Pub. L. 91-230, §2, 84 Stat. 121, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-6. Since the passage of the 1964 Act, Congress has also enacted 10 additional statutes modeled on § 601 of Title VI, none of which define discrimination to require proof of intent.9 Although caution must be exercised *621when dealing with congressional inaction, we have recognized that it is appropriate to attribute significance to such inaction where an administrative interpretation “involves issues of considerable public controversy,” United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544, 554 (1979), and Congress has not acted to correct any misinterpretation of its objectives despite its continuing concern -with the subject matter, ibid.
A contemporaneous and consistent construction of a statute by those charged with its enforcement combined with congressional acquiescence “creates a presumption in favor of the administrative interpretation, to which we should give great weight, even if we doubted the correctness of the ruling of the Department. . . " Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U. S. 341, 345 (1932) (emphasis added). Thus, in construing statutes, this Court has repeatedly sustained a reasonable administrative interpretation even if we would have reached a different result had the question initially arisen in a judicial proceeding. FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U. S. 27, 39 (1981); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 381 (1969); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965); Unemployment Compensation Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 153 (1946); United States v. Alexander, 12 Wall. 177, 179-181 (1871).
While not the only reasonable construction of the statute, the uniform administrative construction of Title VI is “far from unreasonable.” Zenith Radio Carp. v. United States, 437 U. S., at 451. The Civil Rights Act was aimed at “eradicating significant areas of discrimination on a nationwide basis.” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1963). The “[mjost glaring” problem was “the discrimination against Negroes which exists throughout our Nation.” Ibid. Given that Title VI was meant to remedy past de-*622crimination against minorities, 438 U. S., at 285 (Powell, J.); id., at 328 (Brennan, White, Marshall, and Black-mun, JJ.), an “effects” test is a reasonable means of effectuating this goal. See City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 177 (1980) (ban on electoral changes having a discriminatory impact is an appropriate method of enforcing prohibition against intentional discrimination). In addition, when the agencies first interpreted the statute in 1964, 12 years before Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), the equal protection standard could easily have been viewed as one of discriminatory impact. See, e. g., Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773 (1964) (per curiam); Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399 (1964).10 Moreover, given the need for an objective and administrable standard applicable to thousands of federal grants under Title VI, the “effects” test is far more practical than a test that focuses on the motive of the recipient, which is typically very difficult to determine.11
The legislative history of Title VI fully confirms that Congress intended to delegate to the Executive Branch substantial leeway in interpreting the meaning of discrimination under Title VI. See Abernathy, Title VI and the Constitution: A Regulatory Model for Defining “Discrimination,” 70 Geo. L. J. 1, 20-39 (1981). The word “discrimination” was nowhere defined in Title VI.12 Instead, Congress authorized *623executive departments and agencies to adopt regulations with the antidiscrimination principle of § 601 of the Act “as a general criterion to follow.” Civil Rights: Hearings on H. R. 7152 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 2740 (1963) (testimony of Attorney General Kennedy). Congress willingly conceded “[gjreat powers” to the Executive Branch in defining the reach of the statute. Id., at 1520 (statement of Rep. Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee).13 Indeed, the significance of the administrative role in the statutory scheme is underscored by the fact that Congress required the President to approve all Title VI regulations.14
In the face of a reasonable and contemporaneous administrative construction that has been consistently adhered to for nearly 20 years, originally permitted and subsequently acquiesced in by Congress, and expressly adopted by this Court in Lau, I would hold that Title VI bars practices that have a discriminatory impact and cannot be justified on legitimate grounds.15 I frankly concede that our reasoning in Bakke *624was broader than it should have been. The statement that Title VI was “absolutely coextensive” with the Equal Protection Clause, 438 U. S., at 352, was clearly superfluous to the decision in that case. Whatever the precise relationship between Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause may be, it would have been perverse to construe a statute designed to ameliorate the plight of the victims of racial discrimination to prohibit recipients of federal funds from voluntarily employing race-conscious measures to eliminate the effects of past societal discrimination. Id., at 336-350, 353-355 (opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.).16
HH HH
While agreeing that the Court of Appeals erred m requiring proof of discriminatory intent, Justice White has addressed an alternative ground for affirming the Court of Appeals judgment. He concludes that compensatory relief should not be awarded to private Title VI plaintiffs in the absence of proof of discriminatory animus. I cannot agree.
A
It is “well settled” that where legal rights have been invaded, “federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 (1946). See, e. g., Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 238-240 (1969); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. *625Co., 323 U. S. 192, 207 (1944) (courts have a “duty” to provide injunctive and damages remedies for violation of Railway Labor Act’s command to represent union members without racial discrimination); Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U. S. 282, 288 (1940); Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 569-570 (1930). In accord with Bell v. Hood, the Court has previously found no merit in “the contention that such remedies are limited to prospective relief.” J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 434 (1964). Cf. Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110, 128 (1948) (Court “start[s] from the premise” that an injunction against future violations of a statute is inadequate). The use of all available judicial remedies, including compensatory relief, is no less appropriate to redress discrimination in violation of Title VI. “Congress has legislated and made its purpose clear; it has provided enough federal law . . . from which appropriate remedies may be fashioned even though they rest on inferences. Otherwise we impute to Congress a futility inconsistent with the great design of this legislation.” United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U. S. 482, 492 (1960). In Title VI actions, as in other private suits for violations of federal statutes, the federal judiciary may employ remedies “according to reasons related to the substantive social policy embodied in an act of positive law.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 403, n. 4 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). See, e. g., Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, supra, at 239; Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, 389 U. S. 191, 202 (1967); Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, 176 (1942); Deitrick v. Greaney, 309 U. S. 190, 200-201 (1940).
Denying private plaintiffs the right to recover compensatory relief for all violations involving programs with a discriminatory effect would frustrate the fundamental purpose of Title VI. Section 601 unequivocally creates victims’ *626rights. But a right without an effective remedy has little meaning. See Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, supra, at 238. As President Kennedy stated in his 1963 Message to Congress on Civil Rights, “[t]he venerable code of equity law commands ‘for every wrong, a remedy.’ ” H. R. Doc. No. 124, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1963). Noncompensatory relief by its very nature cannot “remedy” an injustice that has already occurred. A failure to correct adequately for individual violations depreciates the law, which was specifically intended to deal with “the injustices and humiliations of racial and other discrimination.” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1963).
Indeed, the unavailability of a retrospective remedy may often result in the deprivation of any relief whatsoever. Many programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, such as construction projects, are necessarily short in duration. By the time that a private plaintiff had successfully brought suit challenging discrimination in such a program, prospective relief could be a nullity. Cf., e. g., Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 P. 2d 920 (CA2 1968) (urban renewal project completed by the time the court recognized plaintiff’s standing to sue).
Private retrospective relief also constitutes a “necessary supplement” to the administrative enforcement mechanism contained in Title VI. See J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra, at 432. The statutory sanction of a fund cutoff cannot sufficiently ensure general compliance with the command of Title VI, because the sheer quantity of federal financial assistance programs makes Government enforcement alone impractical 17 and because a fund cutoff is too Draconian to be widely *627used.18 Retrospective liability for Title VI violations complements administrative enforcement by providing a more realistic deterrent against unlawful behavior. Moreover, the fund cutoff is no “remedy” at all for victims of past acts of discrimination because it merely assures that other innocent individuals will also be denied the benefits of federal assistance.19 Regardless of the alternative administrative sanction, individual acts of discrimination still violate the law and can be remedied only by compensatory relief. Restricting relief to prospective remedies can only encourage recipients acting in bad faith to make no effort to comply with the statute and to stall private litigants in the knowledge that justice delayed will be justice denied.
B
“Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court’s jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied.” Porter v. Warner Co., 328 U. S. 395, 398 (1946). See Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 *628U. S. 288, 291-292 (1960). In enacting Title VI, Congress clearly did not choose to restrict relief to prospective or non-compensatory remedies.20
When Congress has intended to place restrictions on private rights of action in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it has proved capable of saying so explicitly. For example, Title II provides that a court may defer action on a private suit by referring the case to the Community Relations Services. 42 U. S. C. §2000a-3(d). Similarly, Title VII conditions a private action on the plaintiff’s having first brought a claim before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. § 2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V). But nothing in Title VI or in its history supports a restriction on a federal court’s ability to remedy a statutory violation.
C
Justice White attempts to justify the departure from well-established remedial principles by relying in large part on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1 (1981). See ante, at 596-597. Pennhurst involved the Developmental^ Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. §6000 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), a grant program through which the Federal Government provides funding to the States. The Court focused on § 111 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §6010, which states various rights of persons with developmental disabilities. “Noticeably absent” from the provision was “any language suggesting that *629§ 6010 is a ‘condition’ for the receipt of federal funding.” 451 U. S., at 13. This omission stood in stark contrast to other sections of the Act. Because receipt of federal funds was not conditioned on compliance with §6010, the Court held that §6010 imposed no enforceable rights or obligations. The Court analogized spending power legislation to a contract, stating that “if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously.” Id., at 17.21
In contrast to the statutory provision in Pennhurst, Title YI of the Civil Rights Act unambiguously imposes a condition on the grant of federal moneys. Section 601 of Title VI states that “[n]o person . . . shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U. S. C. §2000d. Recipients of federal financial assistance are automatically subject to the nondiscrimination obligation imposed by the statute.
The statutory mandate can hardly escape notice. Every application for federal financial assistance must, “as a condition to its approval and the extension of any Federal financial assistance,” contain assurances that the program will comply with Title VI and with all requirements imposed pursuant to *630the executive regulations issued under Title VI.22 In fact, applicants for federal assistance literally sign contracts in which they agree to comply with Title VI and to “immediately take any measures necessary” to do so. This assurance is given “in consideration of” federal aid, and the Federal Government extends assistance “in reliance on” the assurance of compliance.23 See 3 R. Cappalli, Federal Grants § 19:20, p. 57, and n. 12 (1982) (written assurances are merely a formality because the statutory mandate applies and is enforceable apart from the text of any agreement).
The obligation to comply with § 601 does not place upon a recipient unanticipated burdens because any recipient must anticipate having to comply with the law. Certainly no applicant has a legitimate expectation that he can evade the statutory obligation and the expense that compliance may entail. Indeed, in extending grants the United States has always retained an inherent right to sue for enforcement of the recipient’s obligation.24 All traditional judicial remedies can *631be applied in such situations.25 This right to sue is equally applicable to Title VI. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000h-3. For example, in United States v. Marion County School Dist., 625 F. 2d 607 (CA5 1980), the court concluded “that the United States is entitled to sue to enforce contractual assurances of compliance with Title Vi’s prohibition against discrimination in the operation of federally-funded schools, and that the United States is entitled to whatever relief is necessary to enforce such assurances, including ‘transportation relief.’” Id., at 617.26
*632When respondents requested, received, and expended federal funds to pay the salaries of policemen and trainees and to finance recruitment programs, 466 F. Supp. 1273, 1281 (SDNY 1979), their duty not to discriminate was manifest. The obligation to comply with the law attached at the time respondents agreed to take federal money, not when the District Court concluded that respondents had violated the law. Thus, the District Court properly provided a remedy for past failure to carry out the statutory obligation. The relief fashioned by the District Court requires respondents to remedy their failure to shoulder the burden that existed from the moment they received federal funding.
The analogy drawn in Pennhurst between the acceptance of funds under spending legislation and the formation of a contract only reinforces the propriety of awarding retrospective relief. Having benefited from federal financial assistance conditioned on an obligation not to discriminate, recipients of federal aid must be held to their part of the bargain. Yet, Justice White would allow recipients to violate the conditions of their contracts until a court identifies the violation and either enjoins its continuance or orders the recipient to begin performing its duties incident to the receipt of federal money. See ante, at 602-603. This is surely a bizarre view of contract law.27
Only by providing retrospective relief to private litigants can the courts fulfill the terms of the “contract” between the *633Federal Government and recipients of federal financial assistance. In exchange for federal moneys, recipients have promised not to discriminate. Because Title VI is intended to ensure that “no person” is subject to discrimination in federally assisted programs, private parties function as third-party beneficiaries to these contracts. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S., at 571, n. 2 (Stewart, J., concurring in result). See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §304 (1981). When a court concludes that a recipient has breached its contract, it should enforce the broken promise by protecting the expectation that the recipient would not discriminate. See id. § 344, Comment a. The obvious way to do this is to put private parties in as good a position as they would have been had the contract been performed. This requires precisely the kind of make-whole remedy that Justice White rejects, see ante, at 602-603, despite his accurate characterization of Title VI as a “ 'contractual’ spending-power provision,” ante, at 599.28
*634D
For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that a court has broad discretion to remedy violations of Title VI in actions brought by private parties. Of course, in determining appropriate relief, a court must exercise its discretion equitably. This requires consideration of a myriad of factors including the potential for unreasonable hardship to the party in breach, the extent of mitigation, and the like. The details of the relief would normally be best left to the sound judgment of the District Court. As the District Court noted, remedies adopted in Title VII suits provide a useful guidepost. 466 F. Supp., at 1287; see also Association Against Discrimination v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F. Supp. 101, 112 (Conn. 1979). In my view, the relief ordered by the District Court in this case was entirely appropriate.
Because the relief petitioners received was available to them under Title VI, and because that relief was justified without proof of discriminatory intent, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I dissent.

 Compare Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989, 1000 (CA5 1981) (intent standard); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 648 F. 2d 1104, 1108 (CA7 1981) (same); Lora v. Board of Education, 628 F. 2d 248, 250 (CA2 1980) (same), with NAACP v. Medical Center, Inc., 657 F. 2d 1322, 1328 (CA3 1981) (en banc) (impact standard); Board of Education of City School Dist. v. Califano, 584 F. 2d 576, 589 (CA2 1978) (same), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Board of Education, New York City v. Harris, 444 U. S. 130 (1979); Guadalupe Organization, Inc. v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. No. 3, 587 F. 2d 1022, 1029, and n. 6 (CA9 1978) (same).

 We have not resolved the inconsistency between the two decisions in any of our subsequent cases. See, e. g., Board of Education, New York City v. Harris, supra, at 149 (“There thus is no need here for the Court to be concerned with the issue whether Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 incorporates the constitutional standard”).

 See Comment, 36 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 824, 846-846 (1968).

 Civil Rights: Hearings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 2703 (1963) (testimony of Attorney General Kennedy).

 See Comment, 36 Geo. Wash. L. Rev., at 845-846.

 See, e. g., 34 CFR § 100.3(b)(6) (1982) (Dept, of Education); 24 CFR § 1.4(b)(6) (1982) (Dept. of Housing and Urban Development); 45 CFR § 80.3(b)(6) (1982) (Dept. of Health and Human Services); 28 CFR § 42.104(b)(6) (1982) (Dept. of Justice); 29 CFR § 31.3(b)(6) (1982) (Dept. of Labor). However, these regulations were not prepared contemporaneously with enactment of Title VI and, for that reason alone, are less weighty than the “impact” regulations.

 Regulations of the Cabinet Departments are as follows. Dept. of Agriculture, 7 CFR § 15.3(b)(2) (1982); Dept. of Commerce, 15 CFR § 8.4(b)(2) (1982); Dept, of Defense, 32 CFR § 300.4(b)(2) (1982); Dept. of Education, 34 CFR § 100.3(b)(2) (1982); Dept. of Energy, 10 CFR §§ 1040.13(c), (d) (1982); Dept. of Health and Human Services, 45 CFR §§ 80.3(b)(2), (3) (1982); Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR §§ 1.4(2)(i), (3) (1982); Dept. of the Interior, 43 CFR §§ 17.3(b)(2), (3) (1982); Dept. of Justice, 28 CFR §§ 42.104(b)(2), (3) (1982); Dept. of Labor, 29 CFR §§ 31.3(b)(2), (3) (1982); Dept. of State, 22 CFR § 141.3(b)(2) (1982); Dept. of Transportation, 49 CFR §§ 21.5(b)(2), (3) (1982); Dept. of Treasury, 31 CFR § 51.52(b)(4) (1982). For a listing of the federal agencies with such standards, see CFR Index (1982).

 See 112 Cong. Rec. 18715 (1966) (House vote). The identical amendment was introduced by Senator Ervin and Representative Whitener, both strong critics of the 1964 Act. The amendment would have conditioned fund termination on a constitutional violation and would have defined “discrimination” under Title VI to require a showing of “affirmative intent to exclude.” Id., at 10062, 18701. Both sponsors stated that one purpose of their proposals was “to negate the application of purely mechanistic and statistical criteria in the determination of discrimination.” Id., at 10061 (Sen. Ervin); id., at 18701 (Rep. Whitener). Proponents of the measure criticized the administrative guidelines that had been issued under the 1964 Act. E. g., id., at 18703 (Rep. Landrum). Opponents of the measure asserted that it would constitute “a complete repealer of title VI,” ibid. (Rep. Rodino), and that it “would gut title VI of the 1964 law.” Id., at 18705 (Rep. Kastenmeier).

 See 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a) (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972); 29 U. S. C. § 794 (Rehabilitation Act of 1973); 31 U. S. C. § 1242 (Revenue Sharing Act); 42 U. S. C. § 3766(c)(1) (Crime Control Act of 1973); 42 U. S. C. § 5309 (Housing and Community Development Act of 1976); 42 U. S. C. § 5672(b) (Juvenile Justice Act of 1974); 42 U. S. C. § 6102 (Age Discrimination Act); 42 U. S. C. § 6709 (Public Works Employment Act); 42 U. S. C. § 6870(a) (Energy Conservation and Resources Renewal Act of 1976); 45 U. S. C. § 803 (Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act). Congress directed its attention to the Title VI *621regulations in enacting the Public Works Employment Act of 1976, which provides for enforcement “through agency provisions and rules similar to those already established, with respect to racial and other discrimination under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 42 U. S. C. § 6709.

 See also Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960); Perry, The Disproportionate Impact Theory of Racial Discrimination, 125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 540, 544 (1977) (“Considerable uncertainty existed prior to Washington in regard to whether the principal element of a constitutional claim of racial discrimination was discriminatory purpose or simply discriminatory effect”). Of course, even in Washington v. Davis the Court made clear that evidence of discriminatory impact may be highly probative of discriminatory intent, 426 U. S., at 242.

 See Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F. 2d 1283, 1290 (CA7 1977) (discussing Title VIII), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1025 (1978).

 See 110 Cong. Rec. 5612 (1964) (Sen. Ervin); id., at 1619 (Rep. Abernethy); id., at 1632 (Rep. Dowdy); id., at 5251 (Sen. Talmadge); id., at 6052 (Sen. Johnston).

 See Civil Rights — the President’s Program, 1963: Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 400 (1963) (colloquy between Sen. Ervin and Attorney General Kennedy); Civil Rights: Hearings on H. R. 7152 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765-2766 (1963) (colloquy between Rep. Mathias and Attorney General Kennedy); id,., at 1890 (remarks of Rep. Celler); 110 Cong. Rec. 2498 (1964) (remarks of Rep. Selden); id., at 12320 (remarks of Sen. Byrd).

 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-l. See 110 Cong. Rec. 2499 (1964) (quoting amendment of Rep. Lindsay).

 Proof of the disproportionate racial impact of a program or activity is, of course, not the end of the case. Rather a prima facie showing of discriminatory impact shifts the burden to the recipient of federal funds to demonstrate a sufficient nondiscriminatory justification for the program or activity. See Bryan v. Koch, 627 F. 2d 612, 623 (CA2 1980) (Kearse, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In this case, respondents failed to provide an adequate justification.
I also agree with Justice White, ante, at 584, n. 2, that the administrative regulations are valid even assuming, arguendo, that Title VI itself does not proscribe disparate-impact discrimination.

 Although we recognized in Bakke that our reasoning cast serious doubts on Lau, we took pains to explain that our decision was fully consistent with Lau. See 438 U. S., at 353. Indeed, we noted that the existence of an impact standard “strongly supports the view that voluntary race-conscious remedial action is permissible under Title VI.” Ibid. As we explained, “[i]f discriminatory racial impact alone is enough to demonstrate at least a prima facie Title VI violation, it is difficult to believe that the Title would forbid the Medical School from attempting to correct the racially exclusionary effects of its initial admissions policy during the first two years of the School’s operation.” Ibid.

 See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 401 (1968) (“When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law”). The Federal Government’s actual performance under Title VI has been very inadequate. See Brown v. Weinberger, 417 F. Supp. 1215 *627(DC 1976); Adams v. Weinberger, 391 F. Supp. 269 (DC 1975); U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, The State of Civil Rights: 1977 (1978); U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, The State of Civil Rights: 1976 (1977); U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort (1970); Comptroller General, Agencies When Providing Federal Financial Assistance Should Ensure Compliance with Title VI (B-197815, Apr. 15, 1980); Wing, Title VI and Health Facilities: Forms Without Substance, 30 Hastings L. J. 137 (1978); Note, 65 Cornell L. Rev. 689, 692-695 (1980); Note, 85 Yale L. J. 721, 727-728 (1976); Comment, 36 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 824 (1968).

 See, e. g., Lamber, Private Causes of Action Under Federal Agency Nondiscrimination Statutes, 10 Conn. L. Rev. 859, 888, and n. 150 (1978) (because of “extreme and harsh” nature of the sanction, the Health, Education, and Welfare Department had terminated funding for only three educational institutions in 14 years).

 Congress itself noted that a cutoff was only to be a last resort after other devices, including lawsuits, failed. See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7067 (1964) (Sen. Ribicoff); id., at 5090, 6544 (Sen. Humphrey); id., at 7103 (Sen. Javits).

 By contrast, in Transmerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11 (1979), see ante, at 595-596, the Investment Advisors Act had created an explicit remedy in one section, which precluded the implicit creation of a damages remedy. Title VI, by contrast, contains no explicit private remedy and the administrative remedy is clearly not exclusive. Similarly, in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 705-706 (1979), this Court rejected the notion that an administrative mechanism was the exclusive remedy under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

 Only in dicta did the Court also discuss the question of the appropriate remedy for violation of conditions contained in an Act. 451 U. S., at 29. Because the Court of Appeals had not even addressed the issue, this Court did not purport to resolve the remedial question but merely remanded the matter for further consideration. Id., at 30. Similarly, in Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 (1970), the Court never addressed the propriety of retrospective relief because the plaintiffs had requested only declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of a state law. See id., at 421. Justice White finds solace in Rosado, see ante, at 596-597, even though that decision emphasized the authority of a federal court to oversee use of federal funds in a private suit notwithstanding Congress had lodged in an executive department the power to cut off federal funds for noncompliance with statutory requirements. 397 U. S., at 420.

 See 7 CFR §15.4 (1982) (Dept. of Agriculture); 15 CFR §8.5 (1982) (Dept. of Commerce); 32 CFR § 300.6 (1982) (Dept. of Defense); 34 CFR § 100.4 (1982) (Dept. of Education); 10 CFR § 1040.4 (1982) (Dept. of Energy); 45 CFR § 80.4 (1982) (Dept. of Health and Human Services); 24 CFR § 1.5 (1982) (Dept. of Housing and Urban Development); 43 CFR § 17.4 (1982) (Dept. of the Interior); 28 CFR §42.105 (1982) (Dept. of Justice); 29 CFR § 31.6 (1982) (Dept. of Labor); 22 CFR § 141.4 (1982) (Dept. of State); 49 CFR §21.7 (1982) (Dept. of Transportation); 31 CFR §51.59 (1982) (Dept. of Treasury).

 See, e. g., Assurance of Compliance with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Regulation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, reprinted in 3 R. Cappalli, Federal Grants, Appendix 19-G (1982).

 E. g., Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148, 151 (1956); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 31 (1940); Cotton v. United States, 11 How. 229, 231 (1851); Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat. 172, 181 (1818). As this Court once said with respect to a grant of lands by the Federal Government to a State:
“It is not doubted that the grant by the United States to the State upon conditions, and the acceptance of the grant by the State, constituted a contract. All the elements of a contract met in the transaction, — competent *631parties, proper subject-matter, sufficient consideration, and consent of minds. This contract was binding upon the State.” McGee v. Mathis, 4 Wall. 143, 155 (1866).

 See, e. g., Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, supra, at 151; United States v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 190, 197 (1909); Cotton v. United States, supra, at 231; Dugan v. United States, supra, at 181.

 Accord, e. g.: Brown v. Califano, 201 U. S. App. D. C. 235, 246, 627 F. 2d 1221, 1232 (1980); United States v. Tatum Independent School Dist., 306 F. Supp. 285, 288 (ED Tex. 1969); United States v. Frazer, 297 F. Supp. 319 (MD Ala. 1968), 317 F. Supp. 1079 (MD Ala. 1970) (broad remedial order); United States v. Board of Education, 295 F. Supp. 1041 (SD Ga. 1969). See also, e. g., United States v. Harrison County, Miss., 399 F. 2d 485 (CA5 1968), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 918 (1970); United States v. County School Bd., 221 F. Supp. 93 (ED Va. 1963). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself provides for compliance by any other lawful means and for suits by the Government. § 602, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-l; § 1103, 42 U. S. C. § 2000h-3. See 110 Cong. Rec. 7060 (1964) (Sen. Pastore) (agency may sue to enforce contractual nondiscrimination requirement); id., at 7066 (Sen. Ribicoff) (calling such a suit “the most effective way for an agency to proceed”). Shortly after the Act was passed, agencies charged with its execution confirmed the availability of governmental suits to enforce Title VI. E. g., 29 Fed. Reg. 16301 (1964) (HEW). See 31 Fed. Reg. 5292 (1966) (Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI) (“Possibilities of judicial enforcement include (1) a suit to obtain specific enforcement of assurances . . .”). Indeed, even before enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the President had asserted authority to impose nondiscrimination obligations on the extension of certain forms of federal financial assistance. See Exec. Order No. 10925, 3 CFR 448 (1959-1963 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 11114, 3 CFR 774 (1959-1963 Comp.). Title VI resolved any questions about the President’s authority to enforce such *632obligations since it was undisputed that Congress had the constitutional power to attach reasonable conditions under the Spending Clause. See 3 R. Cappalli, supra, § 19:14, at 38.

 Justice White notes that the Federal Government can sue recipients who fail to comply with grant agreements and force the violators to repay funds. See ante, at 603, n. 24. But this merely demonstrates that recipients do not have any legitimate expectations that only limited injunc-tive relief is available as a remedy for violations of the statute. Moreover, the grant agreements under Title VI specifically mention compliance with the executive regulations, which unambiguously incorporate an effects standard.

 Justice White’s approach is also fraught with the serious difficulties inherent in attempting to classify relief as either retrospective or prospective. For example, Judge Meskill thought that the order that a new sergeant’s examination be given was prospective and noncompensatory, 633 F. 2d, at 255-256, n. 43, but Justice White adopts the contrary position, ante, at 605, 606. Judge Coffrin thought that constructive seniority was noncompensatory. “This court should not view such a remedy as retrospective compensation for past harm simply because the judicial process takes time.” 633 F. 2d, at 274, n. 2 (concurring). Justice White obviously disagrees, ante, at 606.
Justice White rests his analysis on Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 667 (1974), see ante, at 604. But Eleventh Amendment considerations have absolutely no relevance to this case because respondents are not state but rather municipal entities. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 280 (1977) (local governments have no immunity against retroactive liability). Even accepting the relevance of Edelman, the resulting characterizations of the relief in this case are questionable. For instance, the order placing the police officers who were victims of discrimination in the position on the seniority roster that they would have occupied but for the discriminatory examinations certainly alters their employment status for the future. Just because a program is also “compensatory” in nature is clearly not controlling under the Eleventh *634Amendment. In considering compensatory and remedial educational programs in Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977), we stated:
“That the programs are also ‘compensatory’ in nature does not change the fact that they are part of a plan that operates prospectively to bring about the delayed benefits of a unitary school system. We therefore hold that such prospective relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Id., at 290 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
Finally, even if the Eleventh Amendment applied, the relief would not necessarily be inappropriate. In Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), we held that by choosing to operate a railroad, Alabama became subject to duties imposed by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and could be held liable in an action for damages for violations of these duties. A similar analysis could be applied with respect to the receipt of federal funds.