Today's will-the-law-review-editors-let-me-print-it? Calling made-up interpretations of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" "bloody-minded." Which they are.
Paul Gowder
@gowder.io
20K followers 7.5K following 7.4K posts
Prof @ Northwestern law, political theorist, cat parent. Black lives matter. Profile, pubs, etc: gowder.io All my books (rule of law, racial justice, platform governance) are downloadable in free open access pdf @ books.gowder.io
![only if and after it “has advised the appropriate person or persons of the
failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance
cannot be secured by voluntary means.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. The
Government provided the requisite notice underlying this action on June 30,
2025. As noted above, the Amended Complaint is devoid of any factual
allegations plausibly establishing that any events that might be construed as
evidence of noncompliance occurred after June 30, 2025.3
To the extent the Government argues that this result makes it “virtually
impossible for the United States to win a Title VI suit because a reasonable
defendant would cease its indifference as soon as the United States threatens
to withhold funding,” Opp’n [Dkt # 56] at 31 n.6, the Government
misconstrues, inadvertently or not, the purpose of an enforcement action
under § 2000d-1. Congress’s intent was not to penalize a wayward funding
recipient but instead to incentivize it to bring itself into compliance with Title](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:fnqhfefhrn2kq2v4hmamkbij/bafkreigzguaulzxn2e4r4uaujmciutzfakcwlaq6lr5olrqw3cqviikzxu)
