[1] In the 1974 Lau v. Nichols, students unable to speak English fluently were denied additional education, resulting in renewed interest in Nixon’s 1972 proposals.

[3] For example, although the act bears no mention of bilingual education, but instead uses the term "appropriate action" to describe measures Congress may take to enforce the EEOA, Congress has interpreted bilingual education as an action a school district must take to help teach non-English-speaking students how to speak English.

In 1974 the court ruled that a school district based in San Francisco had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying students of Chinese descent opportunities to participate in classes.

In 1981 the U.S Fifth Circuit of Appeals created a three-prong test to be used to determine whether or not school officials denied students not proficient in English the right to enjoy equal educational opportunities.

[7] The court also ruled that not only do undocumented children have the right to receive the same public education, but that they are also required, like U.S. citizens and permanent residents, to attend school until they are of age as laid down by the state law.

For example, the court ruled that school officials cannot legally ask students to present proof of citizenship such as green cards.

In 1982 the Court ruled that the state of Texas had failed to provide opportunities for English learners, mainly of Latino descent, to overcome language barriers under the EEOA.

In 1981 the U.S. Ninth Circuit ruled that state education departments needed to enforce federal mandates in local school districts.