that right for other civil rights statutes, Congress is not acting in a manner that would expose covered entities to unfair findings of discrimination. The legal standard for a disparate impact claim has never been structured so that a finding of discrimination could be based on numerical imbalance alone. (7) In contrast, a failure to reinstate or confirm a private right of action would leave vindication of the rights to equality of opportunity solely to Federal agencies. Action by Congress to specify a private right of action is necessary to ensure that persons will have a remedy if they are denied equal access to education, housing, health, environmental protection, transportation, and many other programs and services by practices of covered entities that result in discrimination. (8) As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandoval, courts have dismissed numerous claims brought under the regulations promulgated pursuant to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. ) that challenged actions with an unjustified discriminatory effect. Although the Sandoval Court did not address title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ( 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), lower courts have similarly dismissed claims under such title. (9) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( 29 U.S.C. 794 ) has received different treatment by the Supreme Court. In Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985), the Court proceeded on the assumption that the statute itself prohibited some actions that had a disparate impact on disabled individuals—an assumption borne out by congressional statements made during passage of the Act. In Sandoval, the Court appeared to accept this principle of Alexander. Moreover, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized congressional approval of the regulations promulgated to implement section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 (1984). Relying on the validity of the regulations, Congress incorporated the regulations into the