Alexander v. Sandoval
Does a private individual have the right to sue in court to enforce federal regulations that prohibit practices with a discriminatory effect (disparate impact) under Section 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The Decision
5-4 decision · Opinion by Antonin Scalia · 2001
Majority Opinion— Antonin Scaliaconcurring ↓dissent ↓
In a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit and held that there is no private right of action to enforce the disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Section 602 of Title VI. This meant Martha Sandoval could not bring her lawsuit, regardless of whether Alabama's English-only policy actually had a discriminatory effect.
The majority's reasoning began with a foundational principle: private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress, not by courts. The judicial task, the Court said, is to carefully examine the text and structure of the statute to determine whether Congress intended to create not just a legal obligation but also a private remedy that individuals can enforce through litigation. These are two separate questions — a statute can impose duties on an entity without simultaneously giving individuals the right to sue over violations of those duties.
Applying this framework, the Court acknowledged that Section 601 of Title VI does support a private right of action, but only to enforce its prohibition on intentional discrimination. Section 602, which authorizes agencies to issue regulations, is a different matter. The Court found that Section 602's language focuses entirely on what agencies may do — it empowers them to write rules and enforce compliance, including by terminating federal funding. Nothing in Section 602's text suggests that Congress intended to give private individuals the power to sue when those regulations are violated.
The majority rejected the argument that because regulations effectuate the purposes of Section 601, a private right of action to enforce Section 601 should automatically extend to the regulations issued under Section 602. The Court emphasized that the rights-creating language must be found in the statute itself. Since the disparate-impact regulations go beyond what Section 601 itself requires — Section 601 bans only intentional discrimination, while the regulations also ban unintentional discriminatory effects — a private right of action under Section 601 does not logically extend to cover claims under the broader regulations. The Court also dismissed the argument that Congress's failure to overturn lower court decisions allowing such suits amounted to approval, calling congressional silence an unreliable guide to legislative intent.
The practical effect of the ruling was significant: individuals could no longer file private lawsuits in federal court challenging policies of federally funded programs on the ground that those policies had a disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin under Title VI. Enforcement of the disparate-impact regulations was left to the federal agencies themselves.
Concurring Opinions
There were no notable separate concurring opinions in this case; the five justices in the majority joined Justice Scalia's opinion without writing separately.
Dissenting Opinions
John Paul Stevensjoined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
Justice Stevens argued that for decades, Congress, federal agencies, and courts had all operated on the shared understanding that private individuals could enforce the disparate-impact regulations under Title VI. The majority, he contended, was overturning settled expectations and stripping vulnerable communities of a critical tool for combating discrimination, based on an unnecessarily rigid reading of the statute.
- The private right of action under Section 601 had been well established, and because the Section 602 regulations were issued to carry out Section 601's purpose, the right to sue should logically extend to enforcement of those regulations.
- Congress had repeatedly legislated with full awareness that courts were allowing private enforcement of the disparate-impact regulations and never moved to curtail that right, which strongly suggests Congress approved of the practice.
- The majority's approach represented a sharp and unjustified departure from prior precedent and would leave individuals who suffer real discrimination without a meaningful legal remedy, since relying solely on agency enforcement is inadequate in practice.
- The dissent criticized the majority for applying an overly formalistic, text-only methodology that ignored the broader purpose and history of Title VI, which was enacted to ensure that federal money would not be used to subsidize discrimination in any form.
Background & Facts
In 1990, Alabama amended its state constitution to declare English the official language of the state. Consistent with this policy, the Alabama Department of Public Safety administered its driver's license examinations only in English. Martha Sandoval, a non-English-speaking resident of Alabama, challenged this English-only policy, arguing it had a discriminatory effect on people based on their national origin. She did not claim Alabama intended to discriminate; rather, she argued the policy had the practical result of disproportionately harming non-English speakers, many of whom were racial and ethnic minorities.
Sandoval's legal argument rested on federal regulations issued by the Department of Justice under Section 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI has two key sections. Section 601 flatly prohibits intentional discrimination by any entity that receives federal funding — and Alabama's Department of Public Safety did receive federal funds. Section 602 authorizes federal agencies to write regulations that carry out Section 601's goals. Under this authority, the DOJ had issued regulations that went further than Section 601 itself: they banned not only intentional discrimination but also practices that had a discriminatory effect, even without any intent to discriminate. Sandoval sued under these disparate-impact regulations, arguing the English-only exam policy violated them.
Sandoval filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The district court ruled in her favor, finding that the English-only policy did indeed have a disparate impact on the basis of national origin and ordering Alabama to accommodate non-English speakers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that decision.
James Alexander, the Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. The central issue was not whether the English-only policy actually had a discriminatory effect — the Court did not reach that question. Instead, the critical threshold issue was whether Sandoval, as a private citizen, had the legal right to bring this kind of lawsuit in the first place. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve confusion among lower courts about whether individuals could sue to enforce the disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Section 602 of Title VI.
The Arguments
Alabama argued that private individuals cannot sue in court to enforce regulations issued under Section 602 of Title VI, because Congress never created a private right of action for that purpose. The text of the statute only authorizes agencies — not private citizens — to enforce disparate-impact regulations, and courts should not invent rights of action that Congress did not include.
- Section 601 of Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination, and the Supreme Court had already established that private individuals can sue under Section 601 — but only for intentional discrimination, not for disparate impact.
- Section 602 merely authorizes federal agencies to write implementing regulations; it does not contain any language suggesting that private individuals can enforce those regulations through lawsuits.
- Even if the disparate-impact regulations are valid, the proper enforcement mechanism is agency action — such as cutting off federal funds — not private litigation initiated by individuals.
Sandoval argued that because private individuals have long been understood to have the right to sue under Section 601 of Title VI, and because the disparate-impact regulations were issued to carry out Section 601's anti-discrimination purpose, individuals should also be able to sue when those regulations are violated. The regulations give concrete meaning to the broad protections Congress intended.
- Multiple federal courts of appeals had long recognized that individuals could bring private lawsuits to enforce the disparate-impact regulations under Title VI.
- The regulations were a legitimate exercise of federal agency power under Section 602, and denying a private right of action would leave individuals with no practical remedy when government programs discriminate in effect.
- Congress was aware that courts had been allowing private enforcement of these regulations for decades and never took action to stop it, suggesting it accepted and approved of this practice.