English-Only survives in Alabama

[Rudolph C Troike]

This is a sad day for civil rights in America. This hole in the dike could
take us back to the 1950s or even the 1920s. -- Rudy


---------- Forwarded message ----------

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Roseann Duenas Gonzalez wrote:

Rudy, I was the expert in this case brought by the Southern Poverty Law
Center.  It won in every Alabama court.  We feared this would be the
result once the Supreme Court decided to review it.  This sets a terrible
precedent for all other claims.  I'm sick about it.

The entire civil rights community is mourning about this
decision.  It was this section of the law that Lau v. Nichols was based
on.  Now these claims brought by private citizens are no longer
possible.  People are thinking of going to Congress to try to get an
amendment to the law so that this precedent won't stand.  Who knows if that
will be successful.
                        Roseann

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:06:31 -0700
From: C. Thomas Mason <ctm at CTMASON.COM>
To: LINGUA at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: English-Only survives in Alabama

In 1990 Alabama passed a constitutional amendment declaring English the
official language of the state.  State agencies went monolingual,
including the department that administers drivers license examinations.
Spanish-speaking Alabamans challenged the English-only policy, claiming that
it had the effect of discriminating against non-English speakers based on
their national origin.

They based their suit on sections 601 and 602 of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which provides that no person shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity covered by Title VI, and authorizes federal agencies to
issue appropriate regulations.  The U.S. Dept. of Justice had, in fact,
promulgated a regulation forbidding recipients of federal funding to
utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of
subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or
national origin.

The U.S. district court agreed with the Spanish-speaking plaintiffs that the
English-only policy had the effect of discriminating on the basis of
national origin.  So did the 11th Circuit court of appeals, all to no
avail.

In a divided 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today overturned those
courts' decisions and ruled that individuals have no right to bring
suit to enforce the DOJ's regulation.  Only the DOJ can do that.  If it
chooses not to enforce its own regulations, the affected public is simply
out of luck.

The split occurred along familiar lines.  The five votes in the majority
were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and
O'Connor.  The usual suspects dissented--Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg,
and Breyer.

Tom Mason.


ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL, No 99-1908 (U.S.S.C April 24, 2001)
Private individuals may not sue to enforce disparate-impact regulations
promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC
2000d et seq.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/99-1908.html