Justices Debate States’ Rights Test of Federal Anti-Bias Law

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up a states’ rights challenge to federal civil rights law, as lawyers for Alabama claimed that the state stands as a “co-equal sovereign” with the federal government and cannot be sued over policies that have a discriminatory effect on racial or ethnic minorities.

“States are different. They are not run-of-the-mill defendants,” Alabama’s attorney, Jeffrey Sutton, told the justices. “They are co-equal sovereigns,” he said, and cannot be sued in federal court just because they accepted federal funds.

In recent years, “states are different” has become the driving theme of the Rehnquist Court.

The conservative majority has moved on several fronts to carve out a special legal status for the states. The justices have, for example, shielded states from being sued for failing to pay their employees for overtime as required by federal labor law. They also have said state agencies and state colleges cannot be sued if they discriminate against their older workers.

But until now, the justices have not cut back on Congress’ long-understood power to use federal funds as a means to win compliance from the states.

For example, schools and colleges that receive federal funds must comply with Title IX, the measure that bars sex bias in sports and other activities.

The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 also says public agencies that receive federal funds, including states, may not discriminate against people because of their race, sex or national origin. The Justice Department issued regulations two years later that said public agencies cannot enforce policies “that have the effect of subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color or national origin.”

The continued validity of the later regulations appeared to be in doubt during Tuesday’s oral argument.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia said they disagreed with the regulations. Scalia said he believed states could be sued for “intentional discrimination,” but not over policies that may have a discriminatory effect on minorities.

At issue directly is whether Alabama can give drivers’ tests in English only. Every state but Alabama offers these written tests in several languages.

When Alabama switched to an English-only policy, it was sued by a Spanish-speaking woman who said the change had a discriminatory effect on her and thousands of others.

The plaintiff, Martha Sandoval, won before a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals in Atlanta, but the Supreme Court took up the case to decide the larger issue of the reach of federal civil rights laws.

During Tuesday’s argument, no mention was made of drivers’ tests or the English-only policy.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she was concerned about the “sweeping” nature of Alabama’s claim, one that could undercut civil rights law across the board.

U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, making his last appearance on behalf of the Clinton administration, said the discriminatory-effect rule is “utterly embedded in the law” and should not be changed now.

Scalia disagreed. “You have a regulation that cannot be a valid interpretation of the statute,” he said.

The case, Alexander vs. Sandoval, 99-1908, gives the conservative justices several options. They could rule narrowly that private citizens may not sue state agencies for policies that have a discriminatory effect. Or they could go further and strike down the federal regulations enforcing the civil rights law.

Or they could go even further and rule that Congress cannot oblige state agencies to comply with broad civil rights measures as a condition of receiving funds.

A ruling is expected by early summer.