| |
| | Cohen IV Majority |
 | | Brown's efforts to circumvent the controlling effect of Cohen II are unavailing, however, because, under the law of the case doctrine, we are bound in this appeal, as was the district court on remand, by the prior panel's rulings of law. |
| | Specifically, Brown argues that the district court's interpretation and application of the test is irreconcilable with the statute, the regulation, and the agency's interpretation of the law, and effectively renders Title IX an "affirmative action statute" that mandates preferential treatment for women by imposing quotas in excess of women's relative interests and abilities in athletics. |
| | Brown's rehashed statutory challenge is foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine and we are therefore bound by the prior panel's interpretation of the statute, the regulation, and the relevant agency pronouncements. |
| www.brown.edu /Administration/News_Bureau/1996-97/96-050maj.html (13405 words) |
|
