education law article 129 a

While taking into account all the cases listed in the table, we focus on two main judgments: on Tatarstan and Sakha. The first of these is a landmark case, in which judicial practice supported the republic’s right to introduce the compulsory study of its official language: the judgment of the Russian Constitutional Court (rcc) of 16 November 2004 (hereinafter the case). The rcc’s ruling referred to a complaint brought by a resident of Tatarstan, who disputed a set of language provisions in the republic’s legislation, including the constitutionality of the compulsory study of Tatar and Russian “in equal measure” in the republic’s schools. The rcc held that issues of linguistic policy cannot be managed exclusively by the subjects of the Federation; nevertheless, the rcc took into account the legal significance of the recognition of Tatar as the “state language of the republic” and its function in the public sphere, buttressed by constitutional guarantees. The rcc concluded that, in order for Tatar to be used in the republic’s administration, the republic may legally require compulsory study of that language within its schools. Consequently, Tatarstan’s legislation was found not to violate the Russian Constitution or the right to choose the language of instruction. The rcc’s decision became a precedent that was cited in rulings from Chuvashia, Komi and Karachay Cherkessia.

The second judgment on which we focus (and the most recent on the issue under consideration) was delivered by the Russian Supreme Court (rsc) in relation to the Republic of Sakha/Yakutia, and the compulsory study of the Sakha language (also known as Yakut), considered in 2015 (the case). The rsc referred to an infringement of the right to choose the language of instruction, and to the fact that the content of education cannot be regulated at the level of the subject, but has to reflect fses requirements.

The first observation that can be drawn from the cases included in the table is that they reveal disagreements between state actors. For example, in , while the republic’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Justice took the position that the compulsory study of Adyge violated federal legislation, the republic’s president and parliament disagreed. In the cases examined here, provisions on the compulsory study of regional languages were challenged by republics’ residents or prosecutors (or deputy prosecutors), while the legislatures sought to defend their right to adopt and apply such provisions. Noteworthy is also the fact that some of the same principles were upheld in different cases, yet with courts reaching different conclusions. For example, in the cases of , and , the courts referred to the principle that nobody can impose limits or privileges concerning the use of a particular language; the same principle was recalled with reference to : in the first set of cases, provisions for the compulsory study of languages were declared invalid, while in they were held to be compatible with federal legislation.

Diverging opinions on the delimitation of the republics’ powers – and their balance against federal competences – at least partially derive from a lack of legal clarity. Indeed, while Article 14(3) of the Law on Education stipulates that the study of state languages of a republic may be introduced on its territory, the same law does not specify whether this should be a compulsory subject. The republics, in their own legislation on the use of languages in education, in most cases reproduce the same (unclear) principles. The resulting legal uncertainty has led to the courts being called upon to shed light on these issues.

The matter of free choice of language of instruction has been raised in repeated instances. In and , the courts reasoned that the disputed provisions obstructed free choice of language of communication, education, and artistic expression. In , the Republic of Adygea’s Supreme Court spelled out that “nobody may oblige a person to learn a language against their will” – thereby anticipating the position taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office in 2017. The rcc took a different position in (and later ), which was replicated by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Komi. In the latter cases, the courts held that republican provisions on the study of their official languages in the republics’ schools did not violate the constitutional right to freely choose the language of education, provided that the study of these languages took place in accordance with federal legislation and standards. Yet, as noted, frequent disagreements have related to striking a balance between federal and regional competences.

All judgments – including those supporting the right of a republic to declare the study of its language(s) compulsory – referred to the notion that education has to be provided in full compliance with federal standards. The courts have held that the federal authorities were responsible for regulating teaching of Russian as the state language of the Federation, alongside teaching of official and other languages in the republics; in turn, republics’ laws could not interfere with the compulsory study of Russian on the basis of federal standards, or restrict the rights of physical or legal persons in the education sphere set by federal law.

From this common starting point, in some cases federal competences were treated as delimiting (and superseding) the republics’ ability to legally require compulsory study of their state languages; in others, these competences were judged compatible with forms of autonomy in the regions. In , the rcc, on the one hand, stressed the authority of the federal center in devising linguistic policies, including those affecting the state languages of the republics; on the other, compulsory study of regional languages in the republics’ schools was held, in principle, not to contradict federal legislation. Significantly, in (2009), the rsc stated that, while fses fall within the competence of federal executive bodies, this “does not imply the revocation of the powers of a subject of the Russian Federation to create the necessary organizational, financial and other guarantees to meet educational needs and requests of citizens in the study of the state languages of the republic”. This principle, the rsc held, arose from the (later repealed) 1992 Federal Law “On Education”, according to which the study of the state languages of Russia’s republics was regulated by the legislation of the republics themselves (this provision was excluded from subsequent legislation).

This last citation reveals recognition of the importance of positive action in creating the conditions to sustain multilingualism in the education system, and enabling its functionality. Yet the law that contained the disputed provision was repealed and replaced by another in November 2009, just a few months after the judgment (April 2009).

A different approach was taken by the rsc in (2012) and (2015). In , the rsc reversed a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tuva (scrt), on the possible incompatibility with federal law of provisions contained in Tuvan legislation on the study of the Tuvan and Russian languages starting with preschool institutions. The scrt rejected the case of incompatibility, pointing to distinct competences for republican and federal authorities. The rsc disagreed, stating that, contrary to the scrt’s interpretation, federal legislation stipulates that the requirements for the study of languages are to be set at federal level. Preschool education, around which the case centered, was held to be among the programs of general education regulated at federal level, through establishment of mandatory federal regulations for implementation of education programs. The disputed norm in Tuvan legislation was declared invalid from the time the judgment entered into force.

In the rsc reiterated the principle that the content of education cannot be regulated at the level of the subject, but has to reflect the fses’s requirements, and that the subjects’ legislation may not limit the rights and guarantees laid down by federal law. The rsc did acknowledge that the competences of the Federation’s subjects “include the development and implementation of regional programs for the development of education, taking into account regional socio-economic, ecological, demographic, ethno-cultural and other features of the subjects”. Yet, as noted, the “national-regional component” was removed from the legislation and fses in 2007, resulting in a greater role for individual schools (in compliance with federal standards) but a reduced one for republics. Thus, in the rsc held that “neither the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’ nor [the fses] provide the subjects of the Russian Federation with the authority to establish requirements for the content of education programs.” Instead, “this authority can be exercised in ways provided for by the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’, that is, by participating in the expert assessment of samples of basic general education programs, of textbooks, etc.” This approach differs substantially from that which the rsc had taken in 2009 in , outlined above, which had supported a devolution of powers.

further refers to the fact that “policy and legal regulation of relations in the sphere of education are based on the principle of unity of the education space on the territory of the Russian Federation”. The concept of “unity of the education space” had been recalled in previous judgments, such as , and has been a feature of Russian legislation. In , however, a stronger emphasis is placed on unity, with the rsc pointing to the Republic of Sakha’s “violation of the principle of unity of the federal cultural and educational process”, and republican authorities also having “illegally restricted the use of the state language of the Russian Federation”. The rsc referred to principles arising from, , a Decree of the Ministry of Education and Science on fses, stating that the fses “are aimed, in particular, at ensuring the unity of the education space of the Russian Federation; preservation and development of cultural diversity and linguistic heritage of the multinational people of the Russian Federation […]” (Point 4). This type of statement reflects a tension between “unity of the education space” and (cultural and linguistic) diversity in Russia as a multi-ethnic federation. The judgment, supporting the view that Sakha had exceeded its legal powers, implies that this tension is to be resolved through centralized regulation. Finally, we should note that in no case did the courts consider whether the fses requirements may violate the right of a republic to establish their own state language(s), enshrined in the Constitution, taken in conjunction with the right to require their study, included in the Law on Education.

The rcc has not been called upon to decide in cases relating to the constitutionality of the compulsory study of regional languages in a republic since 2011. It remains an open question whether, like the rsc, it would reverse its earlier position and embrace greater centralization, to reflect developments at the federal level. Nevertheless, the overall trajectory of jurisprudence, together with the effects of the language dispute following the Yoshkar-Ola speech, point to the balance increasingly tipping towards federal regulation of the use of languages in the education system. These developments are accompanied by movements supporting the primacy of the Russian language, consolidating the view of Russian as (as Putin put it in Yoshkar-Ola) “the natural spiritual framework of our multinational country”.

In some cases the requirement to study particular languages (or through the medium of those languages) was considered from the point of view of equality – by the applicants or by the courts, or both. In (2006), the argument presented by the applicant (the republic’s deputy prosecutor) was that, on the one hand, citizens of the Russian Federation have a constitutionally-entrenched right to receive basic education in their native language, and the legislature of the Republic of Adygea had acted within its rights by including the study of the Adige language as part of its program of general education. On the other hand, the applicant submitted that the introduction of Adige as a school subject for Adige students “cannot be categorical, as it leads to violation of the principles, guaranteed by the Russian Constitution, of of human and civil rights and freedoms, and citizens’ exercise of duties throughout its territory, including in relation to realization of the right to education and language rights and freedoms.” [italics added]. This view was shared by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygea, which held that the disputed provision was indeed in violation of federal law due to its “categorical character”. Compulsory study of regional languages has also been interpreted as a source of discrimination when confined to individuals with the relevant ethnic background (as has been the case in some republics, including Adygea).

In , the applicant similarly argued that republican provisions prescribing intensive study of Tatar reduced students’ opportunity to “deepen the study of other subjects of the curriculum, and also of optional disciplines”; as a consequence, “those who reside in the Republic of Tatarstan therefore are in an position in realization of the right to education compared to those living in other subjects of the Russian Federation, which violates the guarantees of this right [of ] under the Constitution” [italics added]. The rcc, in its ruling, stated that intensive study of Tatar could not be regarded as an obstacle to equality: Russian (as the country’s state language) and Tatar (as the state language of the republic) performed different functions, and Tatarstan had acted within its rights in introducing a legal requirement that the Tatar and Russian languages be studied “in equal measure” in the republic’s schools (granted that this occurred within an overarching federal education framework, as noted above). Equality was still brought into the judgment: it was reasoned by the rcc that, “unlike the Russian language, the Tatar language is not a state language of the territories of other subjects of the Russian Federation.” Discrepancies in requirements on the study of Russian at the level of the republics could lead to potential “negative consequences in relation to the continuity of learning in a single federal educational environment”. This was linked by the rcc to violations of the principle of equality in the realization of the right to education, as well as freedom of movement and choice of place of residence. The teaching of Tatar could not challenge the status of Russian as the only state language of the Federation, and could not be “to the detriment of the federal component of the basic federal curriculum […] or be an obstacle to realization of the right of students to deepen their learning of other subjects of the curriculum, including Russian […].” Hence, it was envisaged that all students would be taught according to the same educational standards with regard to the main subjects of the curriculum (including Russian). Meanwhile, the judgment added a form of protection for students with limited knowledge of Tatar, by stating that they should experience no obstacles in their final examination, award of a diploma, or in their access to higher education.

In another case considered by the rsc, the study of Russian (along with the obligation to take the final secondary school examination in Russian only) was connected to pre-empting violations of the principle of equality, and to equal opportunities in accessing higher education and professional life. Following the same reasoning, the Russian authorities motivated a refusal to allow pre-school education in the Republic of Karelia to take place exclusively in the Karelian language by stating that the nurseries in question created a “closed language environment within the frames of pre-school institutions”: “[i]n [the] multinational environment of Russia this would significantly reduce their socialization opportunities and, accordingly, would entail [a] of education, further employment etc. […]” [italics added]. Finally, elements of the principle of equality can be found in the Yoshkar-Ola speech, where Putin stated that every Russian citizen must speak Russian, referring to standardized efforts to teach Russian in schools in line with the fses.

This approach to equality reflects a perspective of equality, in the sense that all persons are treated in the same manner. It differs from equality in the sense of special measures to create equal opportunities even in the presence of cultural and linguistic diversity. For example, the latter approach is evidenced in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (fcnm): while stressing the importance of national minorities’ societal integration, the treaty also refers to measures for the promotion of “full and equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority” [italics added]. Substantive equality is reflected in the concept of “group-differentiated rights”, by which special support is provided to particular communities, with the objective of creating the conditions for advancing equality, , rather than an ‘equality’ based on ‘sameness’.

Putin’s Yoshkar-Ola speech and the prosecutorial inspections that followed can be located within the broader dynamics of centralization of the education sphere and promotion of unity through uniformity. This article has focused on the advancement of linguistic uniformity, through policies that construct the Russian language as a unifying factor, or “the natural spiritual framework of our multinational country”, as stated by Putin in the Yoshkar-Ola speech. The reduction of the scope of the republics’ rights to promote their official languages, along with tendencies towards the standardization of language policies in schools (presented as ‘equality’), suggest that assimilatory tendencies hide behind discourses on national unity. While not new, these dynamics seem to have gained momentum since Putin’s speech, while recent legal changes have been made in disregard of principles arising from past judicial practice.

In the balancing between federal and republican competences (and between centralization and devolution), the former have gained greater prominence. The effects have been an increased emphasis on Russian and the marginalization of regional languages, along with the shrinking of the regions’ autonomy in the education and linguistic spheres. Moreover, the republics’ participation in devising curricula and textbooks is confined to recommendations, which is not guaranteed to impact upon decision-making at the federal level. These practices escalate the application of uniform education and linguistic policies across the Federation.

While the jurisprudence on republican languages in the education system is relatively small, their incidence reveals center-periphery disputes, which have been, , considered by the Russian higher courts. Public debates and protests have also unfolded within the republics themselves, with private citizens also participating in these actions, including taking cases to court. Meanwhile, the jurisprudence has reflected a general shift towards centralization of the education sphere, with a new emphasis on ‘unity’, particularly through the 2015 judgment. Significantly, no courts have raised the question as to whether the fses requirements themselves may violate the right of a republic to establish its own state language(s) (enshrined in the Constitution) taken in conjunction with the right to require their study (included in the Law on Education). Cautionary language has repeatedly been employed in judgments, for example by stressing that teaching of a republic’s language(s) must occur “not to the detriment of the study of Russian”. The arguments made by the applicants in these cases seem to expose a preoccupation that the teaching of regional languages may erode the knowledge of Russian, and its primacy as the country’s state language. Some judgments have resulted in provisions on the compulsory study of republican languages being declared invalid.

The actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office have similarly followed prevailing tendencies towards centralization of the education space. The position of the Prosecutor General’s Office – crystallized following Putin’s speech – is that, despite the fact that republican languages may be used in administrative bodies, their study may not be mandatory in schools, unlike for other subjects in the curriculum, such as Russian itself. Restrictions on the use of regional languages in the education system began prior to the prosecutorial inspections; at the same time, the inspections have displayed (what seem to be) punitive attitudes, and fueled tensions already present in the regions. And, following the inspections, some republics have amended their legislation, to exclude or dilute the obligation to study titular languages in the republics’ schools.

While federal legislation in principle allows the republics to make the study of regional languages compulsory, this practice is effectively prevented by bylaws (fses) new amendments to the Law on Education. Uniform requirements on the content of education in practice obstruct the right of the Federation’s subjects to realize their internal language policies. The reasons for this obstruction remain unknown; however, if we consider the length and the public character of the dispute, the incidence of protests in the regions, as well as the existence of legal means which could resolve the impasse (which have, however, been neglected), one may speculate that such reasons are primarily political. Rights are recognized and provided for in the law and judicial practice but subsequently eroded. Despite state narratives of Russia’s linguistic diversity, assimilation in practice tends to advance, jeopardizing the future of the country’s multilingualism.

“Vladimir Putin v Yoshkar-Ole provel zasedanie Soveta po mezhnatsional’nym otnosheniyam” [In Yoshkar-Ola Vladimir Putin held a meeting of the Council on Inter-ethnic Relations], (20 July 2017), available at: .

“Putin poruchil Chaike proverit’ dobrovol’nost’ izuchenia natsional’nikh yazyov – srok do 30 noyabrya” [Putin instructed Chaika to verify whether the study of national languages is voluntary for the period until 20 November], (31 August 2018), available at: .

These judgments are described in the second half of this article.

E.g., in his 2017 Yoshkar-Ole speech, Putin recalled that Russian was not only the country’s “language of inter-ethnic communication”, but also “the natural spiritual framework of our entire multinational country”. note 1. See also, , Putin’s 2012 state of the nation address:

For centuries, Russia developed as a multi-ethnic nation . . . a civilization-state bonded by the Russian people [ ], Russian language and Russian [ ] culture native for all of us, uniting us and preventing us from dissolving in this diverse world.

President of Russia, (12 December 2012), . Similar wording can be found in the 2012 ­Presidential Decree “On the Strategy of State Nationality Policy of the Russian Federation until 2025”, No 1666, 19 December 2012.

All-Russia Population Census 2010, available at:

.

In fact, according to the unesco Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, even the more widely spoken languages are endangered, with 131 languages of the Russian Federation under threat in 2010. This included most of the languages recognized as co-official in the republics (alongside Russian), ranging from “vulnerable”, to “definitely endangered”, to “severely endangered”. Christopher Moseley (ed.), (unesco Publishing, Paris, 2010, 3rd ed.).

Boris Orekhov, Irina Krylova, Ivan Popov, Ekaterina Stepanova, Ludmila Zaydelman “Russian Minority Languages on the Web: Descriptive Statistics // Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies”, in (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, 2016), 498–508.

The study was based on data collected in 2014 and 2015 through an automatic “seed words” method in the Russian segment of the Internet, especially in articles in Wikipedia on the languages spoken in Russia, and texts from Vkontakte (a popular Russian social network).

Bill Bowring, (Routledge, London, 2013), 120–38. E.g., from the 16th century, an agreement between Moscow and the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates enabled Tatars to retain their language and religion, as well as their lands, in exchange for loyalty to the tsar. Oleg E. Kutafin, (Prospekt, Moscow, 2006).

E.g., the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, today he Republic of Tatarstan within the Russian Federation.

In what was once the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

22 if counting Crimea.

Even though the Russian Constitution does not employ this particular expression.

According to Anderson and Silver, the Soviet Union had a “longer and more extensive experience with bi-lingual education than any other country in the world”. Barbara A. Anderson and Brian D. Silver, “Equality, Efficiency, and Politics in Soviet Bilingual Education Policy, 1934–1980”, 78(4) (1984), at 1019. See also: Michael Kirkwood (ed.), (Macmillan, London, 1989); E Glyn Lewis, (Mouton, The Hague, 1972); Terry Martin, (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2001); Yuri Slezkine, “The ussr as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism”, 53(2) (1994), 413–452.

Martin ( note 14), 2.

See also Aneta Pavlenko, “Multilingualism in Post-Soviet Countries: Language Revival, Language Removal, and Sociolinguistic Theory”, in Aneta Pavlenko (ed.), (Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2008).

Dmitry P. Gorenburg, “Tatar Language Policies in Comparative Perspective: Why Some Revivals Fail and Some Succeed”, 1 (2005), 1–28, at 3–6.

Dmitry P. Gorenburg, (cup, Cambridge, 2003); Ronald Grigor Suny, (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1993).

Gorenburg, note 18; Yagfar G. Garipov and Helen M. Faller, “The Politics of Language Reform and Bilingualism in Tatarstan”, in Farimah Daftary and François Grin (eds.), (Open Society Institute, Budapest 2003); Katherine E. Graney, “Education Reform in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: Sovereignty Projects in Post-Soviet Russia” 51(4) (1999), 611–632; Konstantin Zamyatin, “From Language Revival to Language Removal? The Teaching of Titular Languages in the National Republics of Post-Soviet Russia”, 11(2) (2012), 75–102.

Recently, there has been an emphasis on security in the sphere of inter-ethnic relations. Bill Bowring, “National Developments–Russia Emphasis on Crimea, Russian Language, and National Security”, 14(1) (2017), 186–198.

Federica Prina, (Routledge, London, 2016), Ch 5.

The Russian government report states that:

Currently 34 languages of [the] peoples of Russia are the state languages of the republics in the Russian Federation and can be used in these constituent entities on a par with the Russian language. According to the statistical surveillance in the 2014/2015 academic year, in addition to the Russian language as the state language of the Russian Federation, the training was conducted in the 24 official languages of the republics belonging to the Russian Federation, and 73 languages of the peoples of Russia are studied as a subject. […].

Fourth Report submitted by the Russian Federation pursuant to Article 25, paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, received on 20 December 2016, acfc/SR/iv(2016)006, p. 65, .

Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (acfc), , adopted on 20 February 2018, acfc/OP/iv(2018)001, , para. 128. The acfc further referred to the centralization of the education system (and the reduced autonomy of the regions) through legislation in 2007; the fact that the “unified state examination” may only be taken in Russian, irrespective of the language of instruction; and the closure of (mostly village) schools with teaching in and of minority languages. acfc, paras. 129–131.

For details, see: Zamyatin, note 19; Konstantin Zamyatin, (Uralica Helsingiensia, Helsinki, 2014); Konstantin Zamyatin, “The Education Reform in Russia and Its Impact on Teaching of the Minority Languages: An Effect of Nation-Building?” 11(1) (2012), 17–47; Konstantin Zamyatin, “Finno-Ugric Languages in Russian Education: The Changing Legal-Institutional Framework and Falling Access to Native Language Learning”, 44 (2012), 2–44; Hèctor Alòs i Font, “Chuvash Language in Chuvashia’s Instruction System: An Example of Educational Language Policies in Post-Soviet Russia”, 13(4) (2014), 52–84; Federica Prina, “Localism or Centralism? Education Reform in Russia and Its Impact on the Rights of National Minorities”, 42 (2011), 113–130; Prina note 21.

Zamyatin, note 19.

Para. 127. See also acfc Thematic Commentary No 3 “The Language Rights of Persons belonging to National Minorities under the Framework Convention”, May 2012, para. 75. The acfc added that:

Pre-school is, together with secondary education, the level where particular weaknesses in the offer of minority language education are often observed. The Advisory Committee underlines that the lack of incentives or insufficient possibilities at pre-school, secondary or higher level can seriously reduce the attractiveness of minority language learning at primary level. (para 127).

Art. 3, Federal Law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation”, 1 June 2005, No 53-FZ.

Law “On the State Language”,

Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”, 29 December 2012, No 273-FZ.

It replaced the Law “On Education” of 10 July 1992, No 3266–1.

Art. 26(2) states:

Everyone shall have the right to use his or her native language, to a free choice of the language of communication, upbringing, education and creative work.

Art. 19(2) stipulates:

The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of public associations, and also of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned.

Art. 68(3) provides:

The Russian Federation shall guarantee to all of its peoples the right to preserve their native language and to create conditions for its study and development.

Federal Law “On the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation”, 25 October 1991, No 1807–1.

Art. 14(1), Law on Education note 29.

Art. 68(2), Russian Constitution:

The Republics shall have the right to establish their own state languages. In the bodies of state authority and local self-government, state institutions of the Republics they shall be used together with the state language of the Russian Federation.

In the case of Dagestan, the expression “languages of the peoples of Dagestan” is used, with scholars estimating that there are 13 languages among those that have a written form (and that should therefore be considered as “state languages of the republic”).

The Constitution foresees the right to choose the language of instruction and the right to use one’s native language (Article 26(2)).

Standards exist for every level of education. The relevant provisions are Decrees of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation: Decree “On the Approval and Implementation of Federal State Educational Standards of Primary General Education”, 6 October 2009, No 373; Decree “On Approval of the Federal State Educational Standards of Basic General Education”, 17 December 2010, No 1897; Decree “On Approval of Federal State Educational Standards of Secondary General Education”, 17 May 2012, No 413.

In 2018 the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation was split into the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation (concerned with pre-school and school education) and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Law “On the Amendment of Legal Acts of the Russian Federation Modifying the Concept and Structure of State Education Standards”, 1 December 2007, No 309-FZ. See also Prina, note 24 (“Localism or Centralism?…”, 2011).

Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation “On Approval of Model Provisions for Institutions of General Education”, 18 March 2001, No 196, para 44. The document states that “participants in the education process” are “students, the teaching staff, and the students’ parents”.

See also the judgment reported below, on .

However, it is not clear how the compulsory status of the “state language of republics” would be combined with legal provisions introduced in August 2018 (see below, nn 69–70), on the “free choice of the language of instruction” (Art. 14(6), Law on Education). In order for the republican languages to become compulsory subjects, it would be necessary to amend Article 14(6).

See the next section.

Protests that took place in 2017 in Bashkortostan, linked to the prosecutorial inspections, show that, before the inspections, in practice the study of the republic’s titular language took place in all its public schools. This was stated by the protesters, members of the Committee for the Protection of Rights of Russian-Speaking Bashkir Students, with reference to their own school audits. See “Bashkiriya — yazykovoj front: nesanktsionirovannyj miting, petitsii, ukazy” [Bashkiria – language front: unauthorized rally, petitions, decrees], (15 September 2017), available at: .

See below (“2. Jurisprudence”).

See above (“1.1 Russia’s Multilingualism”).

Only republics, and no other subjects, may do so.

Doklad prokurora Respubliki Tatarstan Ildusa Nafikova na tridcat’ tret’em zasedanii Gosudarstvennogo Soveta Respubliki Tatarstan [Report of the Prosecutor of the Republic of Tatarstan Ildus Nafikov at the thirty-third meeting of the State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan], available at the official website of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Tatarstan,

Federalizm ostalsya tol’ko na bumage [Federalism remained only on paper], (25 December 2017), available at .

For details, see Szymon Jankiewicz and Nadezhda Knyaginina, “Language Conflicts in Russia’s Education System”, 16(1) (2019), 188–210.

The old version of Art. 3(2) of the Law “On Education in the Republic of Kalmykia” stipulated that the Kalmyk language is a compulsory subject for all students in schools where instruction is in Russian. The new version establishes only that the teaching and learning of the Kalmyk language in public schools must correspond to the fses. And, as noted, the fses do not include such a subject in the mandatory part of the program, so compulsory language learning in the republic is no longer possible. See Law of the Republic of Kalmykia “On Amending Article 3 of the Law of the Republic of Kalmykia ‘On Education in the Republic of Kalmykia’”, 21 November 2017, No 266-V-Z.

The Republic of Karachay Cherkessia amended Art. 5 of the Law “On Certain Issues in the Sphere of Education in the territory of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic”. The old version established that, for native speakers of the one of the republic’s languages, the study of the relevant language was mandatory if Russian was the language of instruction in their schools. The new version of the law excludes provisions about native speakers, and it states that that the study of the republican languages is to be in compliance with fses, and voluntary in the 10th and 11th grades. See Law of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic “On Amending Article 5 of the Law of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic ‘On Certain Issues in the Sphere of Education in the territory of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic’”, 29 December 2017, No 94-RZ.

On this issue, the acfc regretted the fact that the language dispute has resulted in lowering of the status of minority languages (acfc, note 26, paras 134–5). It noted that: “In the Advisory Committee’s view, more time should be taken to reflect upon a solution that would accommodate both the need for sufficient hours of Russian language and the wish of the authorities in republics to develop a certain level of bilingualism of the population.” ( , para 135).

Draft Federal Law No, 438863–7 “On Amending the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’” (concerning the teaching of native languages from the languages of peoples of the Russian Federation and state languages of the republics of the Russian Federation), available at: .

These amendments would have required exclusion of the subject “native language” from the obligatory part of fses. Later the idea was abandoned.

“Pochemu nas khotyat lishit’ rodnogo yazyka?: v Tatarii protiv popravok v FZ” [Why they want to deprive us of our native language?: Tataria against the amendments to the Federal Law], (25 April 2018), available at: .

The petition is available at: .

IA Regnum, , note 58.

Opinion of the State Duma Committee on Education and Science on the Draft Federal Law “On Amending the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’”, No 438863–7. The draft law concerned teaching native languages from the languages of peoples of the Russian Federation and state languages of the republics). Available at:

. The opinions of the constituent entities’ parliaments and heads are available at: .

The President of Russia signed a Decree about creation of this fund within three months (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On Creation of Fund of Preserving and Researching of the Languages of Peoples of the Russian Federation”, 26 October 2018, No 688).

Information on activities in the field is not available in the public domain.

Federal Law “On the Amendments to Articles 11 and 14 of the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’”, No 317-FZ, 3 August 2018, available (in Russian) at .

The amendments added a provision (para 5(1)) to Art. 11 of the Law, stating that the fses at all levels of instructions “guarantee the opportunity” to a) “receive instruction in the native languages from the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation”; and b) “study of the state languages of the republics of the Russian Federation, native languages from the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation, ” [italics added].

Until students are no longer minors or until completion of basic general education. The new version of Art. 14(6) states that “free choice of the language of instruction” (which includes Russian as native language) is realized through a declaration by the parents (or legal guardians).

Law of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic “On Amending Article 5 of the Law of the ­Karachay-Cherkess Republic ‘On Certain Issues in the Sphere of Education in the territory of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic’”, 29 December 2018, No 96-RZ.

Art. 14 of the 2012 Law on Education ( note 29).

“Na 90% nashli obshchij yazyk”: Gosduma prishla k «formule Babicha» – obyazatel’no, no po vyboru” [We have found the 90% of common language: State Duma reached the ‘Babich formula’ – compulsory, but voluntarily] (6 June 2018), available at .

acfc, note 26, para 130. See also acfc Thematic Commentary No 3, , (May 2012, para 75).

All-Russia Population Census 2010. Book 5, “The Language Knowledge of the people of Russian Federation”, available at: .

For students or their parents there is no right to freely choose to study a certain foreign language (only those foreign languages that are already established in school curricula).

“Tatarskim aktivistam ne razreshili kritiku zakona o rodnyh yazykah – sud podderzhal ­zapret mitinga” [Tatar Activists were not permitted to critique the law on native ­languages – court upheld the ban on the rally] (30 July 2018), available at: .

These cases are outlined in this section. See also the Table of Cases.

Russian Supreme Court, Judgment of 23 September 2015, No 74-apg15–20.

The State Council of the Republic of Adygea (‘Khase’).

Adding “with the exception of cases foreseen by the legislation of the Russian Federation”.

See above (“1.3 The Language Dispute”).

See .

See also .

Law of 10 September 1992, No 3266–1. The law was repealed and replaced in 2012.

Art. 6(6) of the 1992 Law. The rsc further referred to Art. 29(1) of the 1992 Law, which stated that the subjects had the authority to develop and implement regional programs on education, “taking into account national and regional socio-economic, environmental, cultural, demographic and other features”.

For persons who are “speakers of the language”. Art. 7(6) of the Law of the Republic of Karachay Cherkessia “On Education”, 6 January 1998, No 376-xxi.

The rsc added:

The right of citizens of the Russian Federation to receive education in their native language is ensured by the creation of the necessary number of relevant educational institutions, classes, groups, as well as the creation of conditions for their functioning.

Law of the rkc of 2 November 2009, No 50-RZ.

See also and .

Together with the study of national customs and ethics. Art. 7(2)(3) of the Law of the Republic of Tuva “On the Languages in the Republic of Tuva”, 31 December 2003, No 462 BX-1.

The appeal was brought to the rsc by the parliament of the Republic of Tuva.

The court referred to Arts. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 29 of the 1992 Federal Law “On Education” (later replaced by the 2012 Law “On Education in the Russian Federation” – note 29), and Arts. 9 and 10 of the 1991 Federal Law “On the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” ( note 34).

Art. 7(2)(3) was removed with Law of the Republic of Tuva “On the Amendment of the Law of the Republic of Tuva on Languages in the Republic of Tuva”, 9 July 2012, No 1470 BX-i, after the provision was declared invalid.

The rsc cited Art. 8 of the 2012 Law on Education ( note 29).

See section on “Languages in the Education System: Law and Practice”.

See also the rsc cases from 2009, 2011 and 2015, on Karachay Cherkessia, Tuva and Sakha respectively.

The judgment reiterated that: “education in the state language of the Russian Federation is guaranteed, as well as the choice of the language of instruction within the limits of the opportunities provided by the education system”.

The rsc cited Arts. 4, 12 and 14 of the 2012 Law on Education ( note 29).

E.g., see Arts. 3(1)(4) and 11(1) of the Law on Education ( note 29).

This view had already been presented in the judgment by the Sakha Supreme Court.

Decree “On Approval of Federal State Educational Standards of Basic General Education”, 17 December 2010, No 1897, available at .

[…]

4) unity of educational space in the territory of the Russia Federation.

The applicant referred to Arts 9(1) and (2) of the Law “On the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” ( note 34), relating to the right of free choice of language of education.

E.g., in , the obligation to study the Altai language was considered to infringe the rights of citizens on the grounds of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious origins in light of the fact that it applied specifically to residents of Altai ethnic background.

Similarly, in the case, the applicant argued that the requirement to study the state languages of the Republic in question violated the of rights and freedoms of citizens residing therein. The Supreme Court of the Republic agreed with this interpretation, although the case was later overturned by the rsc.

“In equal measure” with Russian, Art. 8 of Constitution of Tatarstan, and Article 9(2) of the Law “On the State Languages of the Republic of Tatarstan and Other Languages in the Republic of Tatarstan”, 8 July 1992, No 560-xii.

A person residing in Tatarstan had argued that the provision in Tatarstan’s legislation violated the right to equality, as persons from Tatarstan were in an “unequal” position compared to persons in other subjects: the obligation to learn Tatar detracted from the hours that could be devoted to other school subjects.

On these principles, see also the and cases.

rsc, Appeals Chamber, Judgment of 2 July 2009, No kas09-295.

In a report to the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (Third) Report submitted by the Russian Federation, 9 April 2010, acfc/SR/iii(2010)005, 102.

See also Federica Prina, “Linguistic Rights in a Former Empire: Minority Languages and the Russian Higher Courts”, 10 (2011), 61–89.

Art. 4(2), fcnm, ratified by Russia in 1998. Similar provisions are included in Art1(4) of the 1966 UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (icerd), ratified by Russia in 1969, which refer to “special measures taken for the sole purpose of of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms […]” [italics added].

Will Kymlicka, (oup, Oxford, 2007); Will Kymlicka, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995).

As noted, the judgment refers to “unity of the federal cultural and educational process”.

, , , .

• 2.1 Overview of Judgments
• 2.2 Balancing Federal and Regional Competences
• 2.3 Equality and Equal Opportunities
• 3 Conclusion

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

Biden’s new Title IX rules are all set to take effect. But not in these states.

Legal challenges have created a patchwork of standards across the country, with some schools abiding by trump-era rules and others following biden-era guidelines..

For John Brun, going to college was transformative. The 20-year-old grew up in a conservative Christian household in northern Kentucky and came out to his family as gay his junior year in high school. 

After graduating he enrolled at Northern Kentucky University, a public college near the Ohio border. There, he found community and acceptance he’d never felt before. He eventually became the president of a club for queer students. 

The Biden administration's new anti-discrimination protections that became law on Thursday are designed to protect students like him. But court battles have fractured those efforts, leaving K-12 schools and colleges nationwide in flux.

The U.S. Department of Education’s revisions to Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at schools that receive federal funding, marked the first time the statute will grant explicit safeguards for queer and transgender students and school staff.

The new guidance was also crafted to bolster the rights of victims of sexual misconduct and pregnant or parenting students. The law was passed in 1972 to protect women and girls from sex-based discrimination in schools – guaranteeing equal access to academic and athletic programs.

As the new version became official Thursday, one thing was clear: the revised law won't be in effect for everyone. Kentucky, where Brun attends college, is among more than half of U.S. states where the new rules have been stalled by legal challenges, prompted by opponents of civil rights for LGBTQ+ students. In states where the new rules are in effect, the lack of clarity and consistency nationwide has created anxiety for students headed back to school.

The legal wrangling has resulted in a patchwork of standards, with some schools still abiding by Trump-era rules, while others operate under Biden-era regulations. 

"It's a very fluid legal environment," said Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, during a briefing with school officials Thursday morning. "To be clear, we plan to enforce the 2024 regulations starting today, except where they are enjoined."

What's happening in the world? Sign up for USA TODAY's Daily Briefing newsletter to keep informed 24/7.

What's the controversy over Title IX?

In April, the Biden administration finalized its long-awaited revision of Title IX. At the time, the Department of Education told school leaders to prepare to work under the new guidelines beginning Thursday. 

Then came a surge of anger and legal filings. Republican attorneys general and far-right parent groups sued the Biden administration in a flurry of challenges, accusing the federal government of overstepping its authority. Parents from the anti-LGBTQ+ organization Moms for Liberty said the federal government was pushing parents out of the classroom and imposing “gender ideology” on their children. 

The revised Biden administration rules are now blocked in more than half of U.S. states, and conservative groups have argued the court orders should also prevent the law from taking effect at hundreds of colleges and thousands of K-12 schools . Earlier this month, the Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to refine the scope of related court orders, restricting what's in dispute to the rules that offer new protections for transgender students. 

In the meantime, school officials are scrambling to understand which portions of the regulations apply in their states. Some students feel let down. And as court battles rage on, the uncertainty about how the federal government expects schools to enforce the new guidance and whether the most vulnerable students will be protected under it may linger.

Some students 'devastated, frustrated and honestly confused'

After "long days and countless hours'' pressuring the Biden administration to reverse the old rules, student advocates and survivors are "devastated, frustrated and honestly confused,” said Andrew Echols, the executive director of the Every Voice Coalition, an advocacy group for student survivors of sexual assault and harassment. The group signed a joint letter in October urging the administration to make swift changes to the previous regulations.

"Reading and holding the text of the new regulations was an indescribable feeling" after all that work, Echols said, "but it also came with the feeling of impending doom, knowing legal action would be coming." 

That doom is now a reality, with some students saying they'd be hesitant to file a complaint if they experienced sexual harassment or violence, Echols said. At the same time, he said, students at schools and in states where the new rules are in place are more enthusiastic about pushing their cases forward.

What students and administrators should know about Title IX

Beginning Thursday, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools will apply differently depending on where you live and attend school.

Updated Biden administration rules: Will soon affect students across US

The Trump-era Title IX regulations, which made it tougher for students and school staff to prove allegations of sex-based misconduct, will remain in effect in more than two dozen states – Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming – where litigants posed challenges.

The law as it will be enforced in those states will not include the robust new safeguards for LGBTQ+ and pregnant and parenting students, nor does it expand the definition of sexual assault.

Students confused about which regulations apply in their cases should consult a confidential Title IX advocate on their campus, Echols said. School administrators should take the initiative to learn what Title IX looks like on their campuses and be prepared for students’ questions this fall, according to Tracey Vitchers, the executive director of It’s On Us, a national nonprofit focused on preventing sexual violence on campuses.

Any lack of clarity “will only make our students more vulnerable to sexual violence,” Vitchers said in an email to USA TODAY.

Last week, the Department of Education offered guidance for school districts affected by the new regulations. The agency advised schools to update their nondiscrimination policies and ensure accommodations are in place for students to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity. The instructions do not apply in states where the Biden administration guidance is blocked.

Supreme court decision looms, Title IX revisions in limbo

In June, a federal judge in Kentucky banned the updated law in six states, opening his court order with the phrase: “There are two sexes: male and female.” The Kentucky judge's decision was one of several preliminary injunctions ordered in recent weeks to halt parts of the regulations. Another came Wednesday night.

In July, a federal judge in Kansas prohibited any school attended by the children of Moms for Liberty members from abiding by the latest version of the rules. Many of these schools are in states, such as California and New York, where the Biden administration's new rules are simultaneously in effect.

The far-right group has been calling on parents who oppose the regulations to join their ranks and include their schools on the growing list of campuses banned from enforcing them.

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court last month to partially strike down the lower-court injunctions blocking portions of the new rules. The DOJ asked the high court justices to halt two preliminary injunctions, the Kentucky ruling and one in Louisiana. In a court filing, Biden administration officials said that denying the request to narrow the scope of the bans would “cause direct, irreparable harm to the United States and the public.” 

It’s unclear when the court might hand down a decision.

House moves to block Biden's Title IX rule

In the meantime, James Renton, a friend of Brun’s at Northern Kentucky University, said they're disappointed the new Title IX regulations didn't take effect in their state Thursday. But Renton, who uses they/he pronouns, said they’re used to having to fight for their rights. 

They spent much of this year lobbying against a state bill that would have abolished LGBTQ+ student groups at public colleges. Renton’s club for queer men and nonbinary students was one of many at the school that would’ve been on the chopping block. 

 “It’s an annual battle here in Kentucky,” they said.

Contributing: USA TODAY data and graphics reporter Sara Chernikoff

Contact Zachary Schermele by email at [email protected]. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele. Contact Kayla Jimenez at [email protected]. Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.

• Board of Regents
• Business Portal
• Contact NYSED

New York State Education Department

• Commissioner
• USNY Affiliates
• Organization Chart
• Building Tours
• Program Offices
• Rules & Regulations
• Office of Counsel
• Office of State Review
• Freedom of Information (FOIL)
• Governmental Relations
• Adult Education
• Bilingual Education & World Languages
• Career & Technical Education
• Cultural Education
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Early Learning
• Educator Quality
• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• Graduation Measures
• Higher Education
• High School Equivalency
• Indigenous Education
• My Brother's Keeper

Office of the Professions

• P-12 Education
• Special Education
• Vocational Rehabilitation
• Career and Technical Education
• Educational Design and Technology
• Standards and Instruction
• Office of State Assessment
• Computer-Based Testing
• Exam Schedules
• Grades 3-8 Tests
• Regents Exams
• New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)
• English as a Second Language Tests
• Test Security
• Teaching Assistants
• Pupil Personnel Services Staff
• School Administrators
• Professionals
• Career Schools
• Fingerprinting
• Accountability
• Audit Services
• Budget Coordination
• Chief Financial Office
• Child Nutrition
• Facilities Planning
• Ed Management Services
• Pupil Transportation Services
• Religious and Independent School Support
• SEDREF Query
• Public Data
• Data Privacy and Security
• Information & Reporting

Compliance with Education Law Article 129A and Article 129B: "Enough is Enough"

Compliance with Education Law Article 129A and Article 129B: "Enough is Enough"

Recent News

Recent nysed news, get the latest updates.

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the New York State Education Department.

Popular Topics

• Charter Schools
• High School Equivalency Test
• Next Generation Learning Standards
• Professional Licenses & Certification
• Reports & Data
• School Climate
• School Report Cards
• Teacher Certification
• Vocational Services
• Find a school report card
• Find assessment results
• Find high school graduation rates
• Find information about grants
• Get information about learning standards
• Get information about my teacher certification
• Obtain vocational services
• Serve legal papers
• Verify a licensed professional
• File an appeal to the Commissioner

Quick Links

• About the New York State Education Department
• About the University of the State of New York (USNY)
• Business Portal for School Administrators
• Employment Opportunities
• FOIL (Freedom of Information Law)
• Incorporation for Education Corporations
• NYS Archives
• NYS Library
• NYSED Online Services
• Public Broadcasting

Media Center

• Newsletters
• Video Gallery
• X (Formerly Twitter)

New York State Education Building

89 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12234

NYSED General Information: (518) 474-3852

ACCES-VR: 1-800-222-JOBS (5627)

High School Equivalency: (518) 474-5906

New York State Archives: (518) 474-6926

New York State Library: (518) 474-5355

New York State Museum: (518) 474-5877

Office of Higher Education: (518) 486-3633

Office of the Professions: (518) 474-3817

P-12 Education: (518) 474-3862

EMAIL CONTACTS  

Adult Education & Vocational Services 

New York State Archives 

New York State Library 

New York State Museum 

Office of Higher Education 

Office of Education Policy (P-20)

© 2015 - 2024 New York State Education Department

Diversity & Access | Accessibility | Internet Privacy Policy | Disclaimer  |  Terms of Use  

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How the Kids Online Safety Act Was Dragged Into a Political War

The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Kids Online Safety Act on Tuesday, but the legislation faces an uphill battle in the House because of censorship concerns.

By Cecilia Kang

Reporting on child online safety from Washington

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union sent 300 high school students to Capitol Hill to lobby against the Kids Online Safety Act, a bill meant to protect children online.

The teenagers told the staffs of 85 lawmakers that the legislation could censor important conversations, particularly among marginalized groups like L.G.B.T.Q. communities.

“We live on the internet, and we are afraid that important information we’ve accessed all our lives will no longer be available,” said Anjali Verma, a 17-year-old rising high school senior from Bucks County, Pa., who was part of the student lobbying campaign. “Regardless of your political perspective, this looks like a censorship bill.”

The effort was one of many escalations in recent months by those who oppose the bill. In June, a progressive nonprofit, Fight for the Future, organized students to write hundreds of letters to urge lawmakers to scrap it. Conservative groups like Patriot Voices, founded by the former Republican senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, are also protesting with an online petition.

What was supposed to be a simple piece of legislation to protect children online has been dragged into a heated political war. At the heart of the battle are concerns about how the bill could affect free speech on culturally divisive issues, which both sides of the spectrum worry could be weaponized under the guise of child safety. Liberals worry about censorship of transgender care, while conservatives are concerned about the same with anti-abortion efforts. The tech industry has also latched onto the same First Amendment arguments to oppose the bill.

The controversy stems from the specific terms of the Kids Online Safety Act , or KOSA. The legislation would require social media platforms and other sites to limit features that can heighten cyberbullying, harassment and the glorification of self-harm. The bill would also require tech companies to turn on the highest privacy and safety settings for users under 17 and let them opt out of some features that have been shown to lead to compulsive use.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Intellectual Property
• Litigation Trial Practice
• Entertainment Art Sports
• All Federal

The Summer 2024 Olympics in Paris are underway and while millions of eyes are on the games, the United States Olympic & Paralympics Committee (“USOPC”) has its eyes peeled for trademark infringers.   

The  USOPC  serves both the National Olympic Committee and National Paralympic Committee for the U.S. and is responsible for the training and funding of the U.S. Olympic, Paralympic, Youth Olympic, Pan American and Parapan American teams. It owns numerous trademarks, the licensing of which is critical for its funding of the U.S. Olympic Team.

The USOPC recently sued US beverage company Prime Hydration (“Prime”) for alleged trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  According to the USOPC’s  complaint , Prime used Olympic-related terms and trademarks such as “OLYMPIC,” “OLYMPIAN,” “TEAM USA,” and “GOING FOR GOLD” on beverage product packaging, internet and in store advertising and social media promotions without the USOPC’s consent.  Pursuant to the  Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act , 36 U.S.C. § 220506 (the “Ted Stevens Act”), the USOPC has exclusive rights to commercially exploit certain marks and symbols related to the Olympics in the United States, including the symbol of the IOC, “consisting of 5 interlocking rings,” the word “Olympic,” and “any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization” by the IOC, “the International Paralympic Committee, the Pan-American Sports Organization, or the [USOPC].”

The USOPC engages in “a robust licensing program, through which sponsors and other partners are authorized to use trademarks owned by the USOPC on a wide variety of goods and services.”  The USOPC further explains that the Olympic “marks are licensed for use on many products in many different industries, including beverages.” For “a significant monetary contribution,” the USOPC has granted a prominent U.S. beverage company – hint, not Prime – the exclusive right to use the Olympic trademarks, including “OLYMPIC” and “TEAM USA” for beverages in the U.S.

Based on Prime’s unlawful use of Olympic trademarks, which continued after USOPC’s counsel allegedly contacted Prime and requested they cease infringement, the USOPC’s complaint asserts violations of the Ted Stevens Act, trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution arising under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1114, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and Colorado common law.

While this litigation is still pending, marketers and advertisers should be well informed regarding the intellectual property rights at play and the  relevant rules  and guidelines for promotions and advertisements during the Olympic games.   Failing to comply with the relevant Olympic guidelines and infringing on related intellectual property rights can result in litigation.  Proactively engaging outside counsel to review and develop planned marketing campaigns during the Olympics and other large sports events can help companies stay within the relevant social media and advertisement parameters and out of the courtroom.

Current Public Notices

Current legal analysis, more from squire patton boggs (us) llp, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Weekend Edition Sunday

• Latest Show

Sunday Puzzle

• Corrections

Listen to the lead story from this episode.

Politics chat: Trump and the presidential debate, Harris' running mate announcement

by  Mara Liasson ,  Ayesha Rascoe

Social media is flooded with disinformation about the presidential candidates

by  Ayesha Rascoe

The Americas

Protests over election results in venezuela aren't losing steam.

by  Carrie Kahn ,  Ayesha Rascoe

A new bill could bring relief to those displaced after the wildfires in Maui

by  Catherine Cluett Pactol

James Baldwin's face is painted on a decorative bookcase inside the Baldwin & Co. bookstore in New Orleans. Neda Ulaby/NPR hide caption

A bookstore named for James Baldwin is counting down to his 100th birthday

by  Neda Ulaby

Art & Design

A new york artist has a unique take on the art of carving and engraving on whale bone.

by  Ben Berke

Sunday Puzzle NPR hide caption

Sunday Puzzle: An A.C. puzzle to beat the heat

by  Will Shortz

SUNDAY PUZZLE 08/04/24

Fans at the olympics are trading commemorative pins from different countries, music interviews, cat burns on coming of age and her debut album 'early twenties', the week in news and politics, from the newsmakers themselves.

Vice President Harris, who's set to be Democrats' presidential nominee, delivers remarks during an event on Wednesday in Houston. Brandon Bell/Getty Images hide caption

Latino support for Biden was lagging. Harris gives Democrats a chance to win some back

by  Ashley Lopez

Women are leading the medal tally for Team USA at the Olympics

by  Becky Sullivan ,  Ayesha Rascoe

The racial income gap has narrowed for Black Americans, new research shows

The sound of the summer came to electronic musician drew daniel in a dream.

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Danny Hensel

Campers at Mt. Olive Lutheran Church in Santa Monica, Calif., paint crosses during craft time at vacation Bible school. Jason DeRose/NPR hide caption

Not your parents' VBS: How vacation Bible schools are changing to meet new needs

by  Jason DeRose

Pickle products are taking over supermarket aisles

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Stephen Fowler

In Paris, the Olympics pushed out thousands living on the edge of the city

by  Eleanor Beardsley

Magnesium is social media's new favorite magic aid for sleep. Here's what science says

by  Maria Godoy ,  Ayesha Rascoe

A new musical reimagines 'Cats' as it should be

by  Tracie Hunte

Searching for a song you heard between stories? We've retired music buttons on these pages. Learn more here.