Alexander v. Sandoval
| Alexander v. Sandoval | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 16, 2001 Decided April 24, 2001 | |
| Full case name | Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety, et.al. v. Sandoval |
| Holding | |
| There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI. Pp. 3—17. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VI | |
The Alexander v. Sandoval decision ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact, as policies with a disparate impact on minorities are presumed to be unintentional discrimination. The Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act applies only to discrimination proven to be intentional.
Related Issues
William Rehnquist wrote a memo called "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" when he was a law clerk in 1952, during early deliberations that led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In his memo, Rehnquist argued that "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are." [1][2]