Alexander, James, et al. v. Sandoval, Martha

Alexander, James, et al. v. Sandoval, Martha

By: Stephanie Hoops, Medill News ServiceQuestions presented

Can private citizens sue state agencies for administering federal grants in a manner that has the effect of discriminating on the basis of ethnicity?

Brief

In 1996, Martha Sandoval went to take the Alabama driver's license test, but she did not take it. She didnt speak English and the state of Alabama had stopped allowing people like her to take drivers license tests in languages other than English.

In 1990, Alabama had amended its constitution, making English its official language. That amendment was used as justification for requiring drivers license exams to be administered in English only.

While the Alabama Department of Public Safety makes special accommodations for illiterate, deaf and disabled people, non-English speaking people are not allowed to use a translation dictionary.

That wasnt always the way it was in Alabama. From the 1970s to 1991 the state administered the drivers exam in 14 different languages, including Spanish, Korean, Farsi, Cambodian, German, Laotian, Greek, Arabic, French, Japanese, Polish, Thai and Vietnamese.

Sandoval moved from Mexico to Mobile, Alabama in 1987. She spoke Spanish, but very little English.

She understood limited English phrases like ""thank you,"" ""stop,"" ""come here,"" ""turn right,"" and ""turn left,"" but she couldnt read a book in English.

She wanted to learn English so she could talk to people at the store and the doctors and nurses when her kids got sick. So she took English classes at a Baptist church in Mobile for awhile. Eventually she had to stop attending though because she was working two jobs, 7 days a week.

Her situation is similar to the situation of many non-English speaking people in Alabama. Without a drivers license they are limited in their ability to perform basic tasks like going to the grocery store or pharmacy, taking their children to school, responding quickly in an emergency and also in the types of jobs they can obtain.

During the 1990s, more than 10,000 Alabama residents ""did not speak English well"" or ""at all."" That number was projected to grow to over 24,000 by the year 2000.

On Dec. 31, 1996, Sandoval filed a federal class action suit against the Alabama Department of Public Safety and its then Director L.N. Hagan (since replaced by James Alexander), alleging a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal money, such as Alabama.

The state stipulated at trial that the Alabama Department of Public Safety, which administers Alabama's driver's license examinations, is the recipient of several million dollars in federal funds every year.

The federal court ruled against Alabama, finding that the English-only policy ""singles out resident non-English speaking applicants by requiring them to take their examination in English only, without the aid of interpreters or translators.""

The court found none of Alabamas reasons for the policy to be ""substantial legitimate justifications,"" and found that ""the regulation had impermissible disparate impact on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI, and was not supported by substantial legitimate justification.""

""The protection of the Constitution extends to all,"" the federal court wrote. ""To those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution -- a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.""

On Nov. 30, 1999, an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed, holding, ""that [Sandovals] suit is not barred under the Eleventh Amendment, that Section 602 of Title VI creates an implied private cause of action to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief under federal regulations prohibiting disparate impact discrimination against statutorily protected groups, and that the district court did not err in deciding, on the merits, that the [State of Alabamas] English-only official policy constituted a disparate impact on the basis of national origin.""

The Alabama Attorney General wrote in his U.S. Supreme Court petition for a writ of certiorari that its clear that Title VI bars intentional discrimination. But its not clear whether Congress intended to allow private people to sue their state for policies that have a discriminatory impact when the states not intentionally discriminating and the discrimination isnt related to the purpose of the federal funding.

""These cases show that the concern that this Court expressed some 34 years ago in Washington v Davis, that disparate impact claims would threaten `a whole range of tax, welfare, public service, regulatory, and licensing statutes, is not misplaced,"" the Attorney General argued. ""This case presents this court with a clear opportunity to resolve this question.""

""The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue,"" said John H. Findlely of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus petition in the case. The court hasnt made it clear what Title VI was intended to include.

On Sept. 26, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.

On April 24, 2001, a divided Court held 5-4 that private individuals, such as Martha Sandoval, cant sue under Title VI of the federal civil rights act to recover for state rules they consider racially or ethnically discriminatory.

""Neither as originally enacted nor as later amended does Title VI display an intent to create a freestanding private right of action to enforce (such) regulations,"" Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the bare majority.

In so holding, the Court clarified that individuals can sue for federal civil rights violations if there is a state-sponsored intentional discrimination.

The difference, wrote Scalia, is that the provision of the civil rights act (section 602) does not focus on the individual being protected from discrimination or on the funding state agencies receive from the federal government, but on the state agencies themselves. ""So far as we can tell,"" wrote Scalia, ""this authorizing portion of §602 reveals no congressional intent to create a private right of action.""

In limiting federal suits against state agencies to those expressly contemplated by Congress, the majority declined to ""conjure up a private cause of action that has not been authorized by Congress."" Scalia wrote: ""Agencies may play the sorcerers apprentice but not the sorcerer himself.""

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor joined Scalia in the majority.

Writing for dissenters David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the majority for a carving out an important exception ""unfounded in our precedent and hostile to decades of settled expectations.""

Stevens wrote that the exception ""provides a muddled account of both the reasoning and the breadth of our prior decisions.""

In his dissent, Stevens conceded that the Court had ""never said in so many words that a private right of action exists to enforce the disparate-impact regulations"" promulgated under the federal civil rights act, however, by his analysis, the Court had effectively concluded in prior decisions in 1974 (Lau v. Nichols) and in 1979 (Cannon v. University of Chicago) that a private right of action exists.

""Like much else in its opinion,"" Stevens wrote, ""the present majoritys unwillingness to explain its refusal to find the reasoning in Cannon persuasive suggests that todays decision is the unconscious product of the majoritys profound distaste for implied causes of action rather than an attempt to discern the intent of the Congress that enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.""

Sandoval had already won a federal class-action suit that forced Alabama to resume offering the drivers test in other languages. That suit asserted her right to sue under the theory that when spending federal money, states must abide by federal rules.

Alabama was among 25 states that have enacted laws designating English as the official state language.