No. A person cannot sue to enforce that specific regulation. The main law passed by Congress, Title VI, only allows people to sue for discrimination that is done on purpose. The regulation against policies that have a discriminatory *effect* was written by a government agency, not Congress. That regulation goes beyond what the main law forbids. Since Congress never wrote in the law that people could sue to enforce these extra agency rules, the courts can't allow it. It's Congress's job, not the agency's or the court's, to decide who can bring a lawsuit.

Yes. People should be able to sue. For many years, courts have allowed people to sue to enforce both the main anti-discrimination law and the regulations that help it work. The regulations and the law are part of the same team, designed to stop discrimination. It doesn't make sense to say people can only enforce the main law but not the rules that make it effective. The Court is ignoring its own past decisions and making it harder for people to fight discrimination.

No, people can't sue on their own for this. The Civil Rights Act and its regulations don't imply a personal right to sue over rules that end up discriminating. Congress has to clearly create a personal right and way to get a remedy. The Court says we shouldn't assume a personal remedy exists when Congress has set up an enforcement system. Without clear intent from Congress, a right to sue doesn't exist.

The Court is wrong to say people can't sue. In the past, the Court has said that people can fight discrimination in court, whether it's on purpose or just ends up that way. The Civil Rights Act was meant to stop all discrimination, and the rules agencies make are part of that. There's no good reason to treat suing over the Act differently from suing over the rules.

—the Supreme Court held that there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations.

The judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy

Sandoval held that private individuals have no implied cause of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits only intentional discrimination.

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

"The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others."

Congressional intent is the keystone as to whether a federal private right of action exists for a federal statute.

The Supreme Court directs that courts should be loath to imply a private remedy when Congress has created a governing statutory scheme.

Sandoval had brought a class action that resulted in an injunction against Alabama's Department of Public Safety for administering driver's license examinations only in English, in violation of a Department of Justice regulation authorized by § 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Without [statutory intent], a cause of action does not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute

No. Section 602 of Title VI does not create an implied private right of action to enforce regulations proscribing disparate-impact discrimination. The Court's analysis begins and ends with the statutory text, which must manifest a clear congressional intent to create a private remedy. Section 601 of Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination and has been held to have an implied private right of action. However, the disparate-impact regulations at issue, promulgated under the authority of Section 602, forbid conduct that Section 601 permits. Therefore, a right of action to enforce Section 601 does not extend to these regulations. Unlike the rights-creating language of Section 601 ('No person...shall...be subjected to discrimination'), Section 602 is a directive to federal agencies, authorizing them to effectuate Section 601's provisions. This text focuses on the agencies that regulate, not the individuals protected, and thus does not display an intent to create a private right. Furthermore, Section 602 provides an express administrative enforcement mechanism (fund termination), which suggests Congress intended to preclude other remedies. Language in a regulation cannot create a private right of action that Congress has not authorized in the statute itself.

Yes. A private right of action exists to enforce the disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI. The majority's decision is unfounded in precedent and ignores decades of settled expectations. Prior cases like Lau v. Nichols, Cannon v. University of Chicago, and Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City have consistently affirmed the right of private individuals to bring suits to enforce Title VI and its implementing regulations. Section 601 and Section 602 are part of an integrated remedial scheme, where Section 602 exists for the sole purpose of forwarding the antidiscrimination ideals of Section 601. It is illogical to bifurcate the statute and its implementing regulations for enforcement purposes. The majority also wrongly ignores the legal context in which Title VI was enacted, a time when courts regularly inferred private rights of action to make congressional purpose effective. The Court's new rule, requiring a right of action to be explicit, blinds itself to clear evidence of congressional intent and improperly limits the remedies available to victims of discrimination.

No. The Court held that there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI, as Congress did not intend to create such a right. The statute must display an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy. The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others. Private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress, and without such intent, courts may not create one.

The Court's decision is unfounded in precedent and hostile to settled expectations. Prior decisions of the Court, including Lau v. Nichols, Cannon v. University of Chicago, and Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New York City, have affirmed the right of private individuals to bring civil suits to enforce rights guaranteed by Title VI and its implementing regulations. The majority's analysis is flawed, and it misconstrues the relationship between §§ 601 and 602 of Title VI. The regulations at issue are necessary to actualize the goals enunciated in § 601, and there is no reason to differentiate between private actions to enforce § 601 and private actions to enforce § 602.

Alexander v. Sandoval

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot