Alexander v. Sandoval

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Alexander v. Sandoval
ArgueDate=January 16
ArgueYear=2001
DecideDate=April 24
DecideYear=2001
FullName= James Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety, et al., Petitioners v. Martha Sandoval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
USVol=532
USPage=275
Citation=121 S. Ct. 1511; 149 L. Ed. 2d 517; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3367; 69 U.S.L.W. 4250; 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40,456; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3194; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3941; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2042; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 206
Prior=7 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D. Ala. 1998), "aff'd", 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir. 1999), "cert. granted", 530 U.S. 1305 (2000).
Subsequent=268 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2001).
Holding=There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Scalia
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent=Stevens
JoinDissent=Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
LawsApplied=Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VI

"Alexander v. Sandoval", 532 U.S. 275 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 Civil Rights Act of 1964] ] did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact, as policies with a disparate impact on minorities are presumed to be unintentional discrimination.

Facts

In 1990 Alabama added an amendment to the state constitution which made English the official language of Alabama. Thereafter James Alexander, Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, made the Alabama driver's license test English only. Martha Sandoval sued Alexander and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama under an administrative regulation. The Department of Justice had promulgated this regulation in order to implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" in federally funded programs. Sandoval sought to enjoin the English-only policy, arguing that it had a "disparate impact" on those born outside the United States, because the policy had the effect of subjecting those who did not speak English to discrimination. The district court agreed with Sandoval and enjoined the policy. The defendants then appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit held that the regulation under which Sandoval sued allowed a private litigant to enforce its provisions, and affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on "only the question [of] whether there [was] a private cause of action to enforce the regulation." ["Alexander v. Sandoval", 532 U.S. 275, 279 (2001) (majority opinion per Scalia, J.).]

Overview

The precedent on which the Court relied most heavily for limiting § 601 to intentional discrimination was "Cannon v. University of Chicago" (1979). The Court split 5-4 over how to define the holding of "Cannon". The dissent said the holding of "Cannon" included a footnote that described the disparate impact details of an age requirement that tended to "exclude women from consideration." Scalia's interpretation of the holding of the case excluded the disputed footnote and focused on the statement that Cannon was denied admission to medical school "because she is a woman."

Another issue was whether § 602 of Title VI needed to repeat the rights creating language (race, color, or national origin) in § 601 of the same title in order to allow a private cause of action to sue for policies that have a disparate impact on minorities. [As the majority opinion said, "the "rights-creating" language so critical to the Court's analysis in Cannon of § 601, see 441 U.S., at 690 n. 13, is completely absent from § 602] The majority assumed for the sake of argument that the DOJ and DOT had a right to issue regulations banning policies that have a disparate impact under § 602, but that these rules were separate from a private cause of action to enforce them in § 601. In other words, the majority allowed the argument that the rule was valid but said that no private lawsuit could be made to enforce the rule. Stevens' dissent argued that the two sections were closely related parts of the same title, Title VI.

The law

Title VI

Section 601 of Title VI provides that no person shall, "on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" a federally funded program. [42 U.S.C. § 2000d.] Section 602 authorizes federal agencies "to effectuate the provisions of [§ 601] ... by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability." [42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1.]

Implied private rights of action

An implied private right of action is a cause of action not expressly included by a statute but one which a court has interpreted the statute to implicitly create. Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has become increasingly restrictive in implying private rights of action. [Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 6.3 at 382 (4th ed. 2003).]

In "Cort v. Ash" (1975), the Court laid down four factors to be considered in determining whether a statute implicitly included a private right of action: (1) whether the plaintiff is part of an especial class of people that the statute was intended to protect; (2) whether the legislative history suggests that Congress intended to create a cause of action; (3) whether granting an implied cause of action would support the underlying remedial scheme set down in the statute, and (4) whether the issue would be one that is traditionally left to state law. [422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975).]

The Supreme Court used the four-part "Cort v. Ash" test for several years, and in applying the test, " [f] or the most part, the Court refused to create causes of action." [Chemerinsky, supra, § 6.3 at 384.] In "Touche Ross & Co. v. Remington" (1979), the Court adopted what legal scholars have called a new approach to the issue. [See Chemerinsky, supra, § 6.3 at 385; see also Susan Stabile, "The Role of Congressional Intent in Determining the Existence of Implied Private Rights of Action," 71 Notre Dame L. Rev. 861 (1996).] There, the Court said that the first three factors mentioned in "Cort v. Ash" were simply meant to be "relied upon in determining legislative intent." [442 U.S. 560, 576 (1979)] "The ultimate question," the Court concluded, "is one of legislative intent, not one of whether this Court thinks that it can improve upon the statutory scheme that Congress enacted into law." [442 U.S. at 578.] In 1988 Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor stated that they believe "Touche Ross" effectively overruled the older "Cort v. Ash" test, [See their concurring opinions in "Thompson v. Thompson", 484 U.S. 174 (1988).] although "Cannon" (which adhered to "Cort v. Ash") was relied on by the 2001 "Sandoval" decision.

Question presented

Was there an implied right of action to enforce the regulation under which Sandoval sued?

The majority opinion

The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, began by reviewing the Court's existing case law on Title VI. First, the majority held that "Cannon v. University of Chicago" was controlling. "Cannon", decided shortly before "Touche Ross", held that Title IX met all four parts of the "Cort v. Ash" test and thus contained an implied private right of action. Title IX is identical to Title VI but applies to gender-based discrimination. The "Sandoval" majority stated that " [t] he reasoning of ["Cannon"] embraced the existence of a private right to enforce Title VI as well [as Title IX] ." [532 U.S. at 280.]

The Court said that § 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination according to "Cannon". It referred to a footnote in "Cannon" that the dissent said indicated the disparate impact details of the case. According to the Court, "The language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position." The footnote [The disputed footnote from "Cannon" reads in pertinent part: cquote|According to her complaints, petitioner was qualified to attend both of the respondent medical schools based on both objective (i.e., grade-point average and test scores) and subjective criteria. In fact, both schools admitted some persons to the classes to which she applied despite the fact that those persons had less impressive objective qualifications than she did.Both medical schools receive federal aid, and both have policies against admitting applicants who are more than 30 years old (petitioner was 39 years old at the time she applied), at least if they do not have advanced degrees. ...Because the incidence of interrupted higher education is higher among women than among men, it is further claimed, the age and advanced-degree criteria operate to exclude women from consideration even though the criteria are not valid predictors of success in medical schools or in medical practice.441 U.S. at 680 n.2.] said that the effect of criteria including an age requirement is "to exclude women from consideration." The majority asserted, "this Court is bound by holdings, not language." Therefore, from the majority's point of view, the holding of "Cannon" did not include the footnote. As a consequence, it said only that Cannon's "application for admission to medical school was denied by the respondents because she is a woman," which applied only to intentional discrimination.

The majority assumed for the sake of argument that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Transportation (DOT) had a right to issue regulations banning policies that have a disparate impact under § 602. In dicta, however, it expressed doubt as to whether the regulation was consistent with controlling case law. [ See 532 U.S. at 282 (noting that statements in past opinions which supported the validity of the regulation were "in considerable tension" with precedents, such as "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" and "Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission", which held that § 601 prohibited only intentional discrimination). As with "Cannon", the majority said that only the holding of the "Guardians" case should be considered, and that the fact that five justices for the "Guardians" decision agreed with the disparate impact argument should not be considered.]

The majority opinion said, in reference to "Cannon", that " [i] t is thus beyond dispute that private individuals may sue to enforce § 601. Second, it is similarly beyond dispute–and no party disagrees–that § 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination." The Court then mentioned that "Lau v. Nichols" was inconsistent with the view that § 601 applies only to intentional discrimination, but said that the Court had since rejected "Lau"`s interpretation of Title VI.

The "Lau" decision involved Chinese-Americans in San Francisco who, like Sandoval, complained that English only policies discriminated based on ethnic origin. In "Lau", the Court held that § 601 does allow a private cause of action to challenge a policy which has a disparate impact on a racial group.

The majority pointed out that § 602, by specifying that the federal government could cut off funding to a program which violated § 601, expressly provided for "one method of enforcing" § 601. It concluded that this "express provision of one method" of enforcement "suggests that Congress intended to preclude others," such as a private right of action.

Dissent

Justice Stevens pointed out what the majority had admitted, namely, that there was some confusion over the degree to which "Bakke" and "Guardians" applied to discrimination based on disparate impact.

Justice Stevens explained the "Cannon" decision as follows:

Justice Stevens's response to the majority's account of the relation between § 601 and § 602 is as follows:cquote|Beyond its flawed structural analysis of Title VI and an evident antipathy toward implied rights of action, the majority offers little affirmative support for its conclusion that Congress did not intend to create a private remedy for violations of the Title VI regulations. The Court offers essentially two reasons for its position. First, it attaches significance to the fact that the “rights-creating” language in § 601 that defines the classes protected by the statute is not repeated in § 602. But, of course, there was no reason to put that language in § 602 because it is perfectly obvious that the regulations authorized by § 602 must be designed to protect precisely the same people protected by § 601. Moreover, it is self-evident that, linguistic niceties notwithstanding, any statutory provision whose stated purpose is to “effectuate” the eradication of racial and ethnic discrimination has as its “focus” those individuals who, absent such legislation, would be subject to discrimination.

Second, the Court repeats the argument advanced and rejected in "Cannon" that the express provision of a fund cut-off remedy “suggests that Congress intended to preclude others." ["Id." at 315-16.]

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532

References

Further reading

*cite book |chapter="Alexander v. Sandoval" (2001), title VI, and the court's refusal to consider the validity of English-only laws or rules |title=Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases |last=Soltero |first=Carlos R. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2006 |publisher=University of Texas Press |location=Austin, TX |isbn=0292714114 |pages=185–194

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=532&page=275 Full text opinion from Findlaw.com]
* [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1229/ Summary of case from OYEZ]