intent to create or deny a private right of action? Would creation of a private right of action frustrate legislative scheme, or is it in fact helpful to it? Does the right involve an area that historically has basically been of concern to the States? The court determined that all of the Cort factors pointed to an implied right of action: Women are clearly in the special class protected by the statute, for the statute identifies persons who shall not be excluded. Title IX contained language which copied that of Title VI, for which a private cause of action had already been implied by the Fifth Circuit at the time Title IX was adopted; this was held to show legislative intent. The remedy was necessary, or at least helpful to accomplishing one of Congress’ two purposes: avoiding federal support for discriminators and protecting individual citizens from discrimination. Private suits make this second purpose easier to implement. This question is not left to states because the federal government is primarily responsible for protecting against discrimination. The Court also recognized that while this new source of financial liability might affect universities badly, it was up to Congress to weigh that concern. Dissent A dissenting opinion by Justice Powell raised separation of powers concerns. He called the Court's decision legislation, noting that Congress knew how to make judicial remedies, and saying that three of the four factors invited judicial lawmaking—only the second factor, he argued, was really about congressional intent. Powell contended that the Court's decision would encourage Congress to be lax in their duty to create laws, expecting democratically unaccountable judges to do the job for them. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 441 References . 1979 in United States case law Implied statutory cause of action case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court University and college admissions University of Chicago