Supreme Court Scales Back Part of ’64 Civil Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court made it harder to enforce the nation’s civil rights laws Tuesday, ruling that states, schools and colleges may not be sued for policies that have a discriminatory effect on blacks, Latinos or other minorities.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court’s conservative majority trimmed back part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Agencies that receive federal funds still can be sued if they deliberately discriminate against people because of race or national origin.

However, they can no longer be sued on the grounds that their rules or policies have a harsher effect on minorities, the court said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the conservative majority, said courts have been wrong for 35 years in allowing private lawsuits as a means to enforce the civil rights guarantees.

“We hold that no such right of action exists,” Scalia said.

Conservative lawyers predicted that the decision will kill off lawsuits against the University of California and the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. that challenge their use of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Some lawyers have contended that standards requiring minimum SAT scores for college admission or athletic eligibility have a discriminatory effect on minority students because they result in a disproportionate number of them being disqualified.

Tuesday’s ruling also cast some doubt on the future effectiveness of Title IX, the parallel federal law that forbids sex discrimination by schools and colleges. This 1972 measure, which forced most schools to increase their budgets for female athletics, is famous for revolutionizing women’s sports.

At issue before the Supreme Court were two questions. Do the civil rights laws apply narrowly to intentional discrimination or more broadly to all policies that have a discriminatory effect on minorities? And who can enforce these laws: federal officials or individuals bringing lawsuits?

Since the mid-1960s, civil rights laws have been broadly read to cover all discrimination and have been enforced through private suits.

But many conservatives have insisted that the laws should be narrowed to apply only to deliberate racial discrimination. And they won a major victory in the ruling.

Richard Samp, counsel for the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, called the ruling “a huge win. It will wipe out hundreds of lawsuits in the fields of education and the environment.” He added that, while the court did not strike down the federal regulations that forbid state policies that have a discriminatory effect on minorities, “the opinion offers a clear invitation to challenge the [regulations] in the future.”

The ruling leaves unclear whether there remains any legal way to attack discriminatory policies.

However, Bush administration officials remain free to broadly enforce anti-discrimination laws by threatening to cut off federal funds to states or colleges that have discriminatory policies.

But the ruling rejects the private lawsuits that have been used most often to fight biased policies.

In the case decided Tuesday, lawyers for the Southern Poverty Law Center had sued Alabama for adopting an English-only policy for residents seeking driver’s licenses.

Until 1990, Alabama, like most states, gave its written driver’s test in more than a dozen languages. But the Legislature reversed course and adopted an English-only rule.

The anti-poverty lawyers sued on behalf of Martha Sandoval and several thousand Spanish-speaking residents. A federal judge in Alabama and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed that the English-only policy had a discriminatory effect on Latinos.

Alabama’s attorney general appealed on states’ rights grounds and prevailed Tuesday. In Alexander vs. Sandoval, 99-1908, the high court said the private lawyers had no right to sue the state over its allegedly discriminatory policy.

Scalia’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

John Findley, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, called the ruling “a death knell for many dubious civil right lawsuits.” As an example, he cited a lawsuit that accused UC Berkeley of using SAT scores in a way that has a discriminatory effect on African American and Latino students. “This should bring an end to such suits,” he said.

The NCAA has been sued on behalf of some black athletes who say the minimum SAT requirement for freshmen is unfair and discriminatory. Those claims are pending in lower courts.

The ruling also deals a blow to the so-called environmental justice movement. Some states and municipalities have been sued for locating incinerators and dumps in neighborhoods that are predominantly black or Latino. Lawyers acting on behalf of these communities have sued the state agencies on the grounds that their actions have had a unfair effect on minorities.

The national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union accused the court of crippling the enforcement of civil rights.

“This is a real blow. These discriminatory impact lawsuits have been an extremely important tool for enforcing civil rights,” said the ACLU’s Steven R. Shapiro. “This is another instance of judicial activism. They are invalidating a practice that has gone on essentially unchallenged for 35 years.”

He was referring to Justice Department regulations adopted in 1966. To enforce the new national civil rights laws, the government said then that they covered polices that “have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color or national origin.”

It was assumed then that people who suffered alleged discrimination could sue in federal courts. Some women’s rights lawyers said they feared that Title IX, the law against sex discrimination, could be challenged next.

“It’s worrisome. Title IX is a twin statute [with the Title VI Civil Rights Act], and they have been enforced the same way,” said Kathy Rogers, president of NOW Legal Defense in New York. For example, colleges have been sued not on the grounds that they deliberately discriminate against women but that their failure to add women’s sports programs has a discriminatory effect on their female students.

Justice John Paul Stevens read much of his dissent from the bench Tuesday. He accused Scalia of offering an “illogical and muddled” opinion that ignored both history and the law. He was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.