Larry P. v. Riles was a 1979 federal court decision that barred California schools from using standardized IQ tests to place African American children in classes for the “educable mentally retarded,” known as EMR. Judge Robert F. Peckham of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found the tests were culturally biased, had never been validated for that purpose, and produced racially discriminatory placements in violation of federal civil rights and disability education law. The permanent injunction he issued is still in force in California today.1Justia. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926
What the Case Was About
In 1971, parents of six African American elementary school children in San Francisco sued the California Department of Education and its superintendent, Wilson Riles. Their children had been given standardized IQ tests and, on the basis of the scores, placed in EMR classes. EMR programs offered a stripped-down curriculum with little academic content, and the label followed students through school and beyond.
Statewide, Black students were being sorted into these classes at rates far higher than their share of the school population. The plaintiffs argued the IQ tests were not neutral measures of ability. The questions, they said, reflected white, middle-class cultural knowledge, so a child unfamiliar with that world scored low regardless of actual cognitive capacity.1Justia. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926
The complaint invoked several federal laws at once: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars racial discrimination in federally funded programs;2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000d – Prohibition Against Exclusion From Participation in, Denial of Benefits of, and Discrimination Under Federally Assisted Programs on Ground of Race, Color, or National Origin Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975; and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.3Legal Information Institute. 14th Amendment
What the Court Ruled in 1979
Judge Peckham ruled for the plaintiffs on every statutory claim. He found that California had “utilized standardized intelligence tests that are racially and culturally biased, have a discriminatory impact against black children, and have not been validated for the purpose of essentially permanent placements of black children into educationally dead-end, isolated, and stigmatizing classes.”1Justia. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926
The mechanics of the ruling matter. Once the plaintiffs showed racially disproportionate outcomes, the burden shifted to the state to prove the tests were valid for the use being challenged. The state could not produce that evidence. No study demonstrated the IQ tests had been designed or validated specifically for placing Black children in EMR programs, and the court found that in practice the IQ score drove the placement decision even though other evaluation steps existed on paper.
Discriminatory intent was not required. Racially disparate results plus the absence of validation were enough. The court found violations of Title VI, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.1Justia. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926
What the Injunction Prohibits
Judge Peckham issued a permanent injunction barring California school districts from using standardized IQ tests to identify or place African American students in EMR classes or any program that is their “substantial equivalent.”4Justia. Crawford v. Honig The ban applies whether or not a parent consents to the testing. The court also directed the state to monitor districts and work to eliminate the disproportionate placement of Black students in these programs.
The Ninth Circuit Appeal
California appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction on the federal statutory claims: Title VI, Section 504, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The appellate court concluded, however, that the district court had not established the discriminatory intent needed for a constitutional violation under the Equal Protection Clause, and it held the district court lacked jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims. Those parts of the judgment were vacated. The injunction itself remained fully intact.5CaseMine. Larry P. by Lucille P. v. Riles
The practical effect for California schools did not change, but the surviving legal foundation for the ban was federal statute, not the Constitution.
The 1986 Expansion and Crawford v. Honig
After California abolished the EMR category in the mid-1980s, the Larry P. parties returned to court and agreed to broaden the injunction. In 1986, the ban was expanded to prohibit any IQ testing of African American children referred for any special education assessment, not only EMR-type placements.4Justia. Crawford v. Honig
That wider ban created a new problem. Some Black families with children who had learning disabilities wanted IQ testing, because a significant gap between IQ scores and academic achievement is one way learning disabilities are identified. Without the tests, these children struggled to qualify for services. African American children diagnosed with learning disabilities sued in Crawford v. Honig, arguing the expansion was harming them.
The district court vacated the 1986 modification and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the Crawford plaintiffs’ interests had not been adequately represented in the 1986 proceedings and that the broader ban lacked a sufficient factual basis. The 1986 expansion fell; the original 1979 injunction stayed in place.4Justia. Crawford v. Honig After Crawford, the ban again applied specifically to EMR-equivalent placements rather than to all special education referrals.
Where the Ban Stands Today
The 1979 injunction remains in effect in California. Districts are still prohibited from using standardized IQ tests to identify or place Black students in any category or program substantially equivalent to the old EMR designation, and the California Department of Education has confirmed the injunction continues to bind districts.4Justia. Crawford v. Honig
Outside California, the injunction has no direct legal force. Its reasoning, though, influenced how federal special education law treats assessment nationally.
The 2025 Title VI Rule Change
In December 2025, the Department of Justice issued a final rule eliminating disparate-impact liability under Title VI. The amended regulations state that Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination, and the DOJ said it would no longer pursue Title VI claims against federal funding recipients based on disparate impact alone.6Federal Register. Rescinding Portions of Department of Justice Title VI Regulations To Conform More Closely With the Statute
Part of the Larry P. ruling rested on a disparate-impact theory under Title VI. The 2025 rule does not overturn the Larry P. injunction, which is a standing court order. It does narrow the federal enforcement landscape for future Title VI challenges to testing practices. Schools remain subject to IDEA, Section 504, and state law.
How Larry P. Shaped Federal Special Education Law
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which the court relied on, later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). That statute already required validated, non-biased evaluation procedures; Larry P. showed what happens when those requirements are ignored.
Federal regulations under IDEA now require schools to use a variety of assessment tools, prohibit reliance on any single measure as the sole basis for determining disability or educational placement, and require technically sound instruments.7eCFR. 34 CFR 300.304 – Evaluation Procedures Those rules apply to evaluations for all students regardless of race. The Larry P. insistence that a single IQ score cannot drive placement is essentially the principle written into that regulation.