|
''Alexander v. Sandoval'', , was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964〔42 U.S.C. §§ 2000-d to 2000d-7.〕 did not include a private right of action 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, 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.〔42 U.S.C. § 2000d.〕 The next is section 602, which authorizes federal agencies "to effectuate the provisions of (601 ) ... by issuing rules, regulations or orders of general applicability."〔42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1.〕 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.〔28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (2000).〕 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.〔''See Sandoval v. Hagan'', 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir. 1999).〕 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 () whether there () a private cause of action to enforce the regulation."〔''Alexander v. Sandoval'', 532 U.S. 275, 279 (2001).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Alexander v. Sandoval」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|