Alexander v. Sandoval: Supreme Court Limits Individuals from Suing under Title VI

IMMIGRANTS & PUBLIC BENEFITS

Language Access

ALEXANDER V. SANDOVAL: SUPREME COURT LIMITS INDIVIDUALS FROM SUING UNDER TITLE VI
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 15, No. 3, May 10, 2001

In a decision written by Justice Scalia that is unfortunate for the immigrant community and language rights advocates, the nation's highest court has held, by a 5-4 majority, that there is no private right of action for individuals to file a lawsuit for disparate impact discrimination pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).

Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin (a category that includes language) by entities that receive federal funding. The Court's decision was the result of a class action lawsuit brought against Alabama's Dept. of Public Safety, which decided to administer the driver's license exam only in English after Alabama amended its constitution in 1990 to declare English to be its official language. Prior to 1990, Alabama administered the exam in multiple languages. The litigation challenged the Dept. of Public Safety's new English-only policy, alleging that it had a discriminatory impact on non-English-speakers based on their national origin. Both the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed that Alabama's policy did violate Title VI's prohibition against discrimination.

In its decision, the Supreme Court did not address whether the lower courts correctly held that Alabama's English-only policy had the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their national origin. Instead, the Court focused only on whether private individuals have a cause of action to enforce the U.S. Dept. of Justice-issued regulations that implement the statute. In reaching its decision, the justices held that private individuals may file a lawsuit pursuant to section 601 of Title VI and obtain injunctive relief and other damages, but that prior case law makes it clear that section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination. The prohibition against disparate impact discrimination lies in section 602 of Title VI, which provides governmental agencies with the authority to promulgate rules or regulations to enforce Title VI. However, the Court concluded that this provision does not confer a private right of action to individuals. Yet had the plaintiff alleged intentional discrimination, her lawsuit would have survived, since section 601 allows individuals a private cause of action.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens criticized the majority for a "decision unfounded in our precedent and hostile to decades of settled expectations." The four dissenting justices agreed with the underlying decisions of the district and appellate courts, which found that the Supreme Court had already concluded that there exists a private right of action. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The dissent also cited numerous appellate court decisions holding that individuals do have a private cause of action to enforce all of the regulations issued pursuant to Title VI, including those prohibiting disparate impact discrimination.

Both the majority and dissenting opinions note that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit still have the option of filing disparate impact claims against state actors under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Alexander v. Sandoval, __U.S.__, 69 U.S.L.W. 4250 (Apr. 24, 2001).