The Sandoval decision and its implications for future civil rights enforcement.

• Author: Kimmel, Adele P.
• Position: Private right of action to enforce federal law

In a narrow 5-4 decision issued on April 24, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly curtailed the scope of one of our nation's most important civil rights laws and eliminated a long-standing weapon for battling discrimination. Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federally funded programs and activities from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. (1) Although federal agencies adopted regulations under [section] 602 of the act (2) that prohibit disparate impact discrimination, the Court held in Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S. Ct. 1511, 1523 (2001), that private parties may not sue to enforce those regulations. As a result, private suits under Title VI and its implementing regulations can now be brought only for intentional discrimination. If plaintiffs cannot prove intentional discrimination, they cannot sue under Title VI or its regulations, even if they can prove that the challenged action has a discriminatory impact for which no justification can be shown.

The Supreme Court's decision in Sandoval abruptly reversed nearly three decades of precedent, including the unanimous views of all nine federal appeals courts to address the issue. The federal courts had long read Title VI and its regulations to imply a private right of action for both intentional and disparate impact discrimination. The ability to sue for "disparate impact" discrimination is important because it reaches a broad range of conduct. Plaintiffs do not need to show intentional mistreatment; they need only show that minorities are disproportionately injured by a policy or practice and that such disparate effects cannot be justified. To retain this valuable legal tool against discrimination, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) joined a coalition of public interest groups in an amicus brief in Sandoval urging the Supreme Court to preserve private suits under Title VI's disparate impact regulations. The Court, however, eliminated them.

The implications of the Sandoval decision are significant for a wide range of civil rights cases being litigated throughout the country, including "environmental justice" cases that challenge the placement of waste treatment plants and similar facilities in predominantly minority neighborhoods. This article reviews those implications, as well as possible responses to the Court's decision.

The Sandoval Decision

Sandoval was a class action lawsuit contending that the State of Alabama violated Title VI's disparate impact regulations (3) by requiring applicants for a driver license to take the written examination in English. Specifically, the suit alleged that Alabama's policy unjustifiably excluded non-English speakers from receiving a driver license, discriminating against them based on their national origin. Prior to adopting an English-only amendment to the state constitution in 1990, Alabama had administered the test in 14 languages. Alabama is one of 24 states that have enacted laws designating English as the official state language. But even those states--indeed all states except Alabama--administer driver license exams in multiple languages.

After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, enjoining the English-only policy and ordering the Alabama Department of Public Safety to accommodate non-English speakers. (4) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed, agreeing that there is an implied private right of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations. (5)

Nevertheless, in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that private lawsuits alleging disparate impact discrimination under the regulations are not authorized under Title VI. According to the Court, the ability of plaintiffs to enforce Title VI and its regulations extends no further than the scope of the statute's prohibitions. (6) Title VI itself has been interpreted to prohibit only intentional discrimination. (7) Because the regulations that prohibit disparate impact discrimination extend beyond the statute's prohibition against intentional discrimination, plaintiffs cannot directly enforce the regulations without a congressional mandate to do so. (8)

"Like substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created...