Alexander v. Sandoval
Encyclopedia
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
did not include a private right of action
to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.
Plaintiff Martha Sandoval sued Alexander and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
, claiming that the English-only test policy was discriminatory.
Sandoval sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two sections of Title VI would prove important to her lawsuit. The first is section 601, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" by programs or agencies that receive federal funding — such as the Alabama Department of Public Safety. The next is section 602, which authorizes federal agencies "to effectuate the provisions of [section 601] ... by issuing rules, regulations or orders of general applicability
."
In her lawsuit, Sandoval invoked a regulation that the United States Department of Justice
had promulgated
under section 602. This regulation prohibited agencies and programs receiving federal funding from taking actions that had a disparate impact on persons of a certain race, color, or nationality. Sandoval sought to enjoin
Alabama's policy of giving driver's-license tests in English only. She argued that the policy had a disparate impact on those born outside the United States, because it denied non-English-speakers, who are disproportionately born outside the United States, the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses.
The state defendants, however, argued that the regulation under which Sandoval was suing them did not include what is called an "implied private right of action." An implied private right of action is a cause of action
not expressly created by a statute or regulation but one which a court has interpreted the statute or regulation to implicitly create.
The district court
agreed with Sandoval that she had a private right of action and agreed that Alabama's policy was discriminatory under Title VI. The court therefore enjoined the policy. The state defendants then appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
. The Eleventh Circuit first held that the regulation under which Sandoval sued allowed a private litigant to enforce its provisions, and then affirmed the district court's ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari
on "only the question [of] whether there [was] a private cause of action to enforce the regulation."
First, "it is clear," the Court said, that section 601 of title VI contained an implied private right of action. On this point, the Court held that Cannon v. University of Chicago
was controlling. Cannon held that Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which is identical to Title VI but applies to gender-based discrimination — contained an implied private right of action. Under Cannon, section 601 of Title VI also contained a private right of action.
The Court next noted that "it is beyond dispute," and that "no party disagrees," that section 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination, and does not prohibit activities which have a disparate impact on certain races, colors, or nationalities.
Finally, the Court said it would assume for purposes of deciding the case that regulations promulgated under section 602 of Title VI may validly prohibit actions that have a disparate impact on certain races, colors, or national origins.
The Court then turned to the question that was at issue in the case: whether the disparate-impact regulation that Sandoval invoked created an implied private right of action. The Court rejected the argument — put forward both by Sandoval and by Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion — that because Cannon involved disparate impact, Cannon held that Title IX and by extension Title VI create a private right of action to enjoin policies that create a disparate impact. Both Sandoval and Justice Stevens relied on a footnote in Cannon which stated that the effect of the policies that the Cannon plaintiff challenged was "to exclude women from consideration." The Court responded that Cannon was decided on the assumption that the University of Chicago had engaged in intentional discrimination, and hence the holding of case applied only to intentional discrimination. The Court 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.
The Court also rejected the argument that Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission, a case the Court decided in 1983, dictated the outcome of Sandoval. The Court noted that although five Justices in Guardians had agreed that disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI were valid, a majority of the Justices had not decided that those regulations were enforceable by private plaintiffs.
The Court then examined section 602 — the section of Title VI under which the disparate-impact regulation was promulgated — to determine whether it created an implied private right of action. It began by noting that certain "rights-creating" language that was present in section 601, and which Cannon relied on for its holding, was absent from section 602. The Court pointed out that section 602, by specifying that the federal government could cut off funding to a program which violated regulations, expressly provided for "one method of enforcing" those regulations. 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. It therefore held that Sandoval had no private right of action under the disparate-impact regulation.
Justice Stevens's response to the majority's account of the relation between § 601 and § 602 was as follows:
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
decision which held that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation...
did not include a private right of action
Implied cause of action
Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law...
to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.
Background
In 1990 Alabama added an amendment to its state constitution which made English Alabama's official language. Thereafter, James Alexander, Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, ordered that the Alabama driver's-license test be given only in English.Plaintiff Martha Sandoval sued Alexander and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the following counties: Autauga, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Chambers, Chilton, Coffee, Coosa, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Elmore, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes,...
, claiming that the English-only test policy was discriminatory.
Sandoval sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two sections of Title VI would prove important to her lawsuit. The first is section 601, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" by programs or agencies that receive federal funding — such as the Alabama Department of Public Safety. The next is section 602, which authorizes federal agencies "to effectuate the provisions of [section 601] ... by issuing rules, regulations or orders of general applicability
United States administrative law
United States administrative law encompasses a number of statutes and cases which define the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States Government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always...
."
In her lawsuit, Sandoval invoked a regulation that the United States Department of Justice
United States Department of Justice
The United States Department of Justice , is the United States federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries.The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated...
had promulgated
Rulemaking
In administrative law, rulemaking refers to the process that executive and independent agencies use to create, or promulgate, regulations. In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing statutes, then agencies create more detailed regulations through rulemaking.By bringing...
under section 602. This regulation prohibited agencies and programs receiving federal funding from taking actions that had a disparate impact on persons of a certain race, color, or nationality. Sandoval sought to enjoin
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
Alabama's policy of giving driver's-license tests in English only. She argued that the policy had a disparate impact on those born outside the United States, because it denied non-English-speakers, who are disproportionately born outside the United States, the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses.
The state defendants, however, argued that the regulation under which Sandoval was suing them did not include what is called an "implied private right of action." An implied private right of action is a cause of action
Cause of action
In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit...
not expressly created by a statute or regulation but one which a court has interpreted the statute or regulation to implicitly create.
The district court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
agreed with Sandoval that she had a private right of action and agreed that Alabama's policy was discriminatory under Title VI. The court therefore enjoined the policy. The state defendants then appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Middle District of Alabama...
. The Eleventh Circuit first held that the regulation under which Sandoval sued allowed a private litigant to enforce its provisions, and then affirmed the district court's ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
on "only the question [of] whether there [was] a private cause of action to enforce the regulation."
Question presented
Was there an implied right of action to enforce the regulation under which Sandoval sued?The majority opinion
The Court's opinion, written by Justice Scalia, began by describing the assumptions under which the Court would decide the case.First, "it is clear," the Court said, that section 601 of title VI contained an implied private right of action. On this point, the Court held that Cannon v. University of Chicago
Cannon v. University of Chicago
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 , was a United States Supreme Court case which interpreted Congressional silence in the face of earlier interpretations of similar laws to determine that Title IX of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action.-Facts:Plaintiff Geraldine...
was controlling. Cannon held that Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which is identical to Title VI but applies to gender-based discrimination — contained an implied private right of action. Under Cannon, section 601 of Title VI also contained a private right of action.
The Court next noted that "it is beyond dispute," and that "no party disagrees," that section 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination, and does not prohibit activities which have a disparate impact on certain races, colors, or nationalities.
Finally, the Court said it would assume for purposes of deciding the case that regulations promulgated under section 602 of Title VI may validly prohibit actions that have a disparate impact on certain races, colors, or national origins.
The Court then turned to the question that was at issue in the case: whether the disparate-impact regulation that Sandoval invoked created an implied private right of action. The Court rejected the argument — put forward both by Sandoval and by Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion — that because Cannon involved disparate impact, Cannon held that Title IX and by extension Title VI create a private right of action to enjoin policies that create a disparate impact. Both Sandoval and Justice Stevens relied on a footnote in Cannon which stated that the effect of the policies that the Cannon plaintiff challenged was "to exclude women from consideration." The Court responded that Cannon was decided on the assumption that the University of Chicago had engaged in intentional discrimination, and hence the holding of case applied only to intentional discrimination. The Court 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.
The Court also rejected the argument that Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission, a case the Court decided in 1983, dictated the outcome of Sandoval. The Court noted that although five Justices in Guardians had agreed that disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI were valid, a majority of the Justices had not decided that those regulations were enforceable by private plaintiffs.
The Court then examined section 602 — the section of Title VI under which the disparate-impact regulation was promulgated — to determine whether it created an implied private right of action. It began by noting that certain "rights-creating" language that was present in section 601, and which Cannon relied on for its holding, was absent from section 602. The Court pointed out that section 602, by specifying that the federal government could cut off funding to a program which violated regulations, expressly provided for "one method of enforcing" those regulations. 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. It therefore held that Sandoval had no private right of action under the disparate-impact regulation.
Dissent
In dissent, Justice Stevens explained the Cannon decision as follows:Justice Stevens's response to the majority's account of the relation between § 601 and § 602 was as follows:
See also
- Implied cause of actionImplied cause of actionImplied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532
- List of United States Supreme Court cases