Larry P. v. Riles is the federal class-action lawsuit that permanently barred California public schools from using standardized IQ tests to identify Black students as “educable mentally retarded” or to place them into segregated EMR classes. Filed in 1971 and decided in 1979, the case found that the tests were culturally biased and produced racially discriminatory placements in violation of federal law. Its rules still govern how California schools may assess Black students for special education, and its logic is now written into the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Problem the Case Set Out to Fix
In 1970s California, Black children were funneled into classes labeled for the “educable mentally retarded” at rates far above their share of enrollment. EMR classes were not part of the regular academic track. They focused on basic social adjustment and vocational skills, pulling students out of the standard curriculum with little expectation of return. In one district, Black students were 28.5% of enrollment but 66% of the EMR population.1Justia Law. Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1972) A student’s score on a standardized IQ test was the primary gateway into those classes.
In 1971, the parents of six Black elementary schoolchildren in San Francisco filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming state Superintendent of Public Instruction Wilson Riles as the lead defendant. They argued that widely used intelligence tests, including the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler series, reflected the language and cultural experiences of white, middle-class children. A Black child from a different background could be intellectually capable and still score poorly because the test questions assumed a particular set of life experiences. California defended the tests as scientifically validated and argued they were only one piece of a broader evaluation.
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000d – Prohibition Against Exclusion From Participation in Federally Assisted Programs on Ground of Race, Color, or National Origin
What Judge Peckham Decided in 1979
Judge Robert F. Peckham ruled for the plaintiffs. He found that the standardized IQ tests had never been validated for the purpose of placing Black children into EMR programs, that the state could not show they accurately measured the intelligence of Black students, and that the gross overrepresentation of Black children in EMR classes was the predictable result of relying on a flawed instrument. The court rejected California’s argument that the IQ score was just one factor. In practice, Judge Peckham found, the score drove the placement, and the other components of the evaluation functioned as rubber stamps.3Justia Law. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979)
What the Injunction Required
The court issued permanent injunctive relief with three main parts.
California schools were banned from using any standardized intelligence test to identify Black children as educable mentally retarded or to place them into EMR classes without prior court approval. To obtain approval, the State Board of Education would have to submit mean-score data for Black and white students, evidence that the test was validated for this specific purpose, and proof that public hearings had been held on the proposed test.3Justia Law. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979)
The state also had to monitor and eliminate disproportionate EMR placement of Black children. Any district where Black EMR enrollment exceeded one standard deviation above the white EMR rate had to adopt a three-year corrective plan, and persistent imbalance had to be brought back to the court.
Every Black child already identified as EMR had to be reevaluated without any unapproved intelligence test. The reevaluation had to include diagnostic testing for specific learning needs, adaptive behavior observations, and developmental and health histories. If a child had been misplaced, the district had to prepare an individual educational plan aimed at returning that child to a regular classroom.
The Appeal and the Later Modifications
California appealed, and in 1984 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ban. The injunction stood, and California schools remained prohibited from using standardized IQ tests to place Black students in EMR programs.
In 1986, after California abolished the EMR category, Judge Peckham expanded the original ban. The new order prohibited IQ testing of Black students referred for any special education services, barred such testing even with parental consent, and prohibited IQ scores from other sources from being placed in a Black student’s school record.
That broader ban was then challenged from the opposite direction. In Crawford v. Honig, a group of Black parents argued the 1986 expansion actually harmed their children by preventing cognitive assessments that might qualify them for services addressing learning disabilities. In 1992, Judge Peckham reversed his own 1986 expansion, and the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed that reversal in September 1994.
Crawford restored the right of Black parents in California to request IQ testing for their children. It did not disturb the original 1979 holding: schools still cannot use standardized intelligence tests to identify or place Black students in EMR-equivalent classes without court approval.
Where the Ban Stands in California Today
The Larry P. injunction remains in force. In a 2022 memorandum, the California Department of Education clarified that the ban applies to “standardized intelligence tests,” meaning tests that produce a score claiming to measure general intellectual functioning. It covers two situations: identifying Black students as educable mentally retarded or any substantial equivalent, and placing them into EMR-type classes or programs serving the same function. No district has obtained the court approval that would be required to use a standardized intelligence test for those purposes.4California Department of Education. Memorandum From the Director of Special Education – Special Education Assessment of African American Students
The ban does not reach every cognitive assessment. Following Crawford, parents of Black students may request IQ testing for purposes unrelated to EMR identification, and school psychologists can exercise professional judgment about whether cognitive assessments are appropriate for evaluating other suspected disabilities, so long as the assessment is not being used for EMR-type placement.
How the Case Shaped Federal Special Education Law
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, one of the statutes the Larry P. court found had been violated, was reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.5U.S. Department of Education. A History of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act The concerns raised in Larry P. now sit inside the federal evaluation rules. IDEA requires that assessments used to evaluate a child for special education be “selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis.”6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 20 USC 1414 – Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements The implementing regulations add that assessments must be given in the child’s native language and in a format most likely to capture what the child actually knows and can do.7eCFR. 34 CFR 300.304 – Evaluation Procedures
IDEA also prohibits relying on any single test score to determine whether a child has a disability or to design the child’s educational program. Schools have to use multiple assessment tools, gather information from parents and teachers, and evaluate the child across all areas related to the suspected disability, including academic performance, social and emotional functioning, and adaptive behavior.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 20 USC 1414 – Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements That move away from a single IQ score toward a broader evaluation is one of the most direct legacies of the case.
If a California District Misapplies the Ban
Some families of Black students find that a cognitive evaluation they want is being withheld because a district has read the Larry P. ban more broadly than Crawford now allows. Under IDEA, parents who disagree with a school’s assessment have the right to request an independent educational evaluation, and the school district may be required to pay for it. Private evaluations can run into the thousands of dollars, but the right to an independent evaluation exists precisely for situations where the district’s process falls short.