WPC I, p Ṵ}x7+)T0 W  B+X?@D&Ua,gjo=gjlۈg-(I߿׉;O1ùO.M;yfćUg6]z/RukF FR`N ]7<}ME0Gyd<:zk>yC.K=^@'P&CyǂX)|(vފX`۲bN|PqHݞjJz+Pj(@"͎~g9T:Cԗq jh֊.!!p^&/҉.&SۀYW՜T myݗ =ב $ȥ DUFC1 v ncmaa7Mm葨 DZ 0 KēN}: 7liʵ҇hI9ZE1̧#f*/0zUfN % 0G 0 0 0  0 0_ 0M 0= 0E% 0  0 0.Ft 0k 0 UP#UNL$ 0$m% 0k' 0W( !) 0-+, - 0=. 0FA. 0P. 0Z. 0d1/ 0Q/ 01 0w3 0n 5 09x6 067 048 0: 02; 0=U0? 0s? 0.B 0:B 08C 0C 0`D 09VE 0?G 0=I 0 L 0$L 0N 0lP 0 R 0S 0S 0T 0U 011W 0}bW 0lW 0KX 0X 0Y 0Z 0m\ 0\ 0] ^  _ 0(_ :_1L_ 0C}_M_  b+b Hb`b $}bb bb &bc .6cdc 2cc cc cd 8.dfddUN;h BhU@h BBhh-(iUi ]i]i]i  cimii,ql o ,oo op %pAp ^pzp pp 0vv Bv?w (\w ww ww w wx { {  | | $| 8| L| `| t| | |  |  | | | |  | } } (} $:} ^} n} ~} } }  } } (} (}  ~ (~ 8~R~ o~  ~ ~ "~~  ~ 1N @ Z r   ц   0F c $u $ 6 ^n  "ڈ    :V 0s  >  KX 0 Ph B&#Պ(Nw4Č^ ، m 1 72 1u 72+ 0c](9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX2  4TOA EntryIndividual entry in Table of Authorities&  8....'  X 8TOC Level 1Table of Contents Level 1 (Argument, Conclusion)&  ..8` ..` ....'  X :TOC Level 11Table of Contents Level 1 (Argument, Conclusion)&  ..8` ..` ....'  k,Hdg 1Main section headings (Argument, Conclusion)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc.6CapacitiesCapacities of parties (e.g, Petitioner)    ..  t,Hdg 2Roman numeral headings (I, II, III)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc II   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcv.Hdg 21Roman numeral headings (I, II, III)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc II   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc5 {8TOC Level 2Table of Contents Level 2 (I, II, III)&  ..II.8` ..` '  8Diamond CapLine with a diamond in the center (caption)  6 ' 4d6 6 @.. #   :Quotes CloseSpaced single/double closing quotes in text,,,c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcԁXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc:Quotes Clos1Spaced single/double closing quotes in text,,,c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcԁXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcv6TOA HeaderHeader for Table of Authorities       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc@..~  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  vl  (#..!Page XXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc  '   +XXXD D  4@  &'%X+TABLEOFAUTHORITIES"Continued   ;Page B  h(C29$ E!D D    }2MastheadIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesH|H4A )  <VKEA {<VAx|H ZR  Z R  ) Inthe  Y RrQXXR{QQRrSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates / k 7 /  XXQR{X#XXX j 6? ' 4dE 4?6:  @)#] ):  ] ))   -%UqZ 8EngrvrsOldEng Bd BT Bold(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular\w{6Cap HeaderHeader for caption  4  4 D  D   D D X  No. u 9(D D    _ @ 3pXXX? 'dE?? 'dE?? '`!dE`!?? 'H"dEH"?? 'v/dEv/?? '.dE.?? '`!v/dE`!v/?? 'H".dEH".?(C29$ E!D D    ^l8Cap Header1Header for caption  4  4 D  D  D D X  No.  (     D  D 6 'd66 'd66 '`!d66 'H"d66 'v/d66 '.d66 '`!v/d66 'H".d6p96TOC HeaderHeader for Table of Contents       ` &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc@.. TABLEOFCONTENTS l  (#..!Page   '   +XXXD D  4@ &'%X+TABLEOFCONTENTS"Continued   ;Page B  h !($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 (2$0 0 0 0 (<$0 0 0 0 0 T4Sig BlockSignature block    c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc   dXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcRespectfullysubmitted,c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc  8Quotes OpenSpaced double/single opening quotes in text ,,,c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcԁXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc:Quotes Open1Spaced double/single opening quotes in text ,,,c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcԁXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcpW8Text HeaderHeader for body of pleadingj7   j78e.eXXd,XXd8  d  ! TX!v8Counsel BlkNames and addresses of counsel    c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc   d64TOA Page1 D  D   @..  &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcTABLEOFAUTHORITIES"Continued..Page   42TOA Page D  D   @..  &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcTABLEOFAUTHORITIES"Continued..Page   2TOC PageHeader for subsequent pages of Table of Contents D  D   @.. &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcTABLEOFCONTENTS"Continued..Page   6CrosshairsBoundary marks for commercial printer6 'd66 'd66 '`!d66 'H"d66 'v/d66 '.d66 '`!v/d66 'H".d6\Q6Cap FooterFooter for caption0*0*l A )@ h+<PKE@ h+<PA 0*l   u8,,XXd,XXd8X.XXXX.XXX.  ! TX!) p`CG Times^8Cap Footer1Footer for caption 0* 6 '@ h+PK6 uXXXE,) p`CG TimesE#,,Xd#XXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc  XXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc     T>4Text BodyJust/Para Spacing/Tab Set for body of document d     T4$2CostCode31174 :Diamond Adv1Vertical advance for Diamond Cap style   8Diamond AdvVertical advance for Diamond Cap style  z|:Font Size FnFont size of pleading footnotes&&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcl,Hdg 5Small letter headings (a, b, c)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc .. a.0..   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc r.Hdg 41Arabic numeral headings (1, 2, 3)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc .. 1.0..   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc p,Hdg 4Arabic numeral headings (1, 2, 3)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc .. 1.0..   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc 2L/R MargLeft and right margins for entire document D  D p,Hdg 3Capital letter headings (A, B, C)    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc  A.0..   '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc :Quotes Op F1Spaced double/single opening quotes in footnotes c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcԁ&&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc:Quotes Op FnSpaced double/single opening quotes in footnotes c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcԁ&&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcm 8TOC Level 5Table of Contents Level 5 (a, b, c)&  ..8` ..`  .. ..a.0h..h'  Z 8TOC Level 4Table of Contents Level 4 (1, 2, 3)&  ..8` ..`  .. 2.0..'  G :TOC Level 31Table of Contents Level 3 (A, B, C)&  ..8` ..` B.0 .. '  G 8TOC Level 3Table of Contents Level 3 (A, B, C)&  ..8` ..` B.0 .. '  :Quotes Cl FnSpaced single/double closing quotes in footnotesc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcԁ&&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc0.Normal8E6TOA Create 4  D D 4 D ..D X8Block QuoteBlock quotation8...Ln BrkBreak a line without ending the paragraphl|6Font Size1Font size of pleading textXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularcj|4Font SizeFont size of pleading textXXXc(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc6Hdg No TOCMain headings that will not appear in the TOC    &    &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman Regularc '       &&&c(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularcV4Text TabsTab Set for text To:Diamond Txt1Line with a diamond in the center (text)6 ' 4d6 6 @.. # o8Diamond TxtLine with a diamond in the center (text)6 ' 4d6 6 @.. #  !K1($M37.32 '_ dS($     C E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  1  PursuanttoSupremeCourtRule37.6,Amiciaffirmthatnocounsel 4 foranypartyinthiscaseauthoredthisbriefinwholeorinpart;and,   furthermore,thatnopersonorentityhasmadeamonetary   contributionspecificallyforthepreparationorsubmissionofthis   brief.QValeria G.1 _SCureton1 _USteel Company1 _WBennett1 _YDouglas County1 _[Sweet Home Chapter1 _]Chevron U.S.A., Inc.1 __Rice1 _aShaw1 _cSt. Marys Honor Center1 _  E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  2  Amendment509readsinrelevantpart: 4 8 4  $ EnglishistheofficiallanguageofthestateofAlabama. R  Thelegislatureshallenforcethisamendmentbyappropriate >  legislation.Thelegislatureandofficialsofthestateof *  Alabamashalltakeallstepsnecessarytoinsurethattherole   Z ofEnglishasthecommonlanguageofthestateofAlabamais   preservedandenhanced.Thelegislatureshallmakenolaw   whichdiminishesorigno&  restheroleofEnglishasthe   commonlanguageofthesta' 4teofAlabama.6Times New Roman Regular  d(9 Z(Times New Roman >Thick Double Pd Pd ##emeXd# Hp1 _S  E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  3  Theregulationsatissueinthiscaseprohibitrecipientsoffederal 4 fundingfromadoptingorenforcingpoliciesthat directlyorthrough   contractualorotherarrangements,utilizecriteriaormethodsof   administrationwhichhavetheeffectofsubjectingpersons   [individuals]todiscriminationbasedontheirrace,color,ornational   origin.49C.F.R.21.5(b)(2),28C.F.R.42.104(b)(2). " E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  4  ThecourtbelowheldthattheactionwasnotbarredbytheEleventh 4 Amendment.First,becausetheAlabamaDepartmentofPublic   Safetyhadvoluntarilyacceptedfederalfundingithadwaivedaclaim   ofsovereignimmunity. s Sandoval,197F.3dat500.Second,evenif   theactionagainstthestateitselfwasbarred,theactionagainstthe   directorforinjunctivereliefcouldproceedundertheExParteYoung   doctrine.Id.SandovaluChester Residents1 _wLau1 _yGuardians1 _{Alexander1 _Sandoval  E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  5  TheCourtcanandshouldreachthisissue.Itgoestothe 4 fundamentalvalidityoftheregulations,andsoisfairlyimplicatedin   thequestionwhetheralawsuitmaybefiledpursuanttothem.The   issuewasraisedinPetitionersReplyBrief(p.6n.3)andtheir   supplementalfiling(see,e.g.,p.9: Insum,thecombinationofa   privaterightofactionandoverbroadfederalregulationspromisea   floodoflitigationagainstfederalgrantees.Privatepartieswilluse   thecourtstotellgranteestodosomethingthatneitherthe t Constitutionnorfederalstatutesmandate.).Finally,theissueis ` likelytoberaisedonremandinlightofRespondents42U.S.C. L  1983claim!eveniftheCourtrules,asitshould,thatthereisno l8  privaterightofactionunderSection602ofTitleVI!sotheCourt X$  shouldoffersomeguidancetothelowercourtsonhowtohandlethe D  issueonremand(asitdidin,forexample,WardsCovePackingCo., 0  Inc.v.Atonio,490U.S.642,65561(1989)).Washington v. Davis1 _Village of Arlington Heights1 _Washington v. DavisFordice1 _Bakke1 _GuardiansGuardians  E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  6  AlthoughfiveJusticesconcludedthatproofofdiscriminatory 4 impactoreffectwassufficienttostateacauseofaction,the   judgmentofthelowercourtwasaffirmedbecauseJusticeWhite   e concludedthatcompensatoryreliefshouldnotbeawardedinthe   absenceofproofofdiscriminatoryintent.  GuardiansAssociation,   463U.S.at584.JusticeWhitesview,inconjunctionwiththefour   Justiceswhowouldaffirmbecauseproofofdiscriminatoryintent   wasnecessarytobringanaction,equaledfivevotesaffirmingthe t  lowercourtsopinion.GuardiansGuardiansBakkeAlexanderGuardiansAlexanderAlexanderAlexanderGuardiansFordiceFordiceBakkeBakkeGuardiansFordiceFordiceBakkeGuardiansAlexanderSandovalChester ResidentsFordiceFordiceSandovalFordiceFordiceBakkeFordiceWashington v. DavisWashington v. DavisBakkeFordiceLarry P.1 _Valeria G.BakkeFordiceTransamerica1 _Touche Ross1 _Suter1 _  E!D D    _ 2  ! X!& 4%XX  7  Focusingexclusivelyoncongressionalintentrepresentsadoctrinal 4 departurefromthefourfactortestestablishedinCortv.Ash,422   U.S.66,78(1975).Underthattestcourtslookedtowhether(1)the   plaintiffwasintheclassforwhosebenefitthestatutewasenacted;    (2)therewasanyexplicitorimplicitindicationoflegislativeintent   tocreatearemedy;(3)aprivateremedywasconsistentwiththe   purposeofthestatute;and(4)thecauseofactionwasonethatis   traditionallyrelegatedtostatelaw.Theanalysissetforthin     Transamericaand  ToucheRossmakesthesecondCortfactor, t  congressionalintent,thedispositiveinquiry.SeeThompsonv. ` Thompson,484U.S.174,189(1988)(Scalia,J.,concurring)( It L couldnotbeplainerthatweeffectivelyoverruledtheCortv.Ash 8t analysisin  ToucheRoss&Co.v.Redington,442U.S.at57576,and $`   TransamericaMortgageAdvisors,Inc.v.Lewis,444U.S.at18, L  convertingoneofitsfourfactors(congressionalintent)intothe 8  determinativefactor,withtheotherthreemerelyindicativeofits $  presenceorabsence.).TransamericaTouche RossTouche RossTransamericaMank3 _BWhite3 _JTouche RossTouche RossCannon1 _SandovalChester ResidentsChester ResidentsCentral Bank of Denver1 _Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio1 _GTE1 _Philadelphia1 _MankPatterson1 _Helvering1 _(2 $ E!D D    3pXXX  0  K2K33|x ((E$D D    dCanon - Attys,,,,,,0!B)ux)q) U(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  E!D D    _ {  44D D D D    D D XX  No.   D D XD D  991908    H 4 A )  <VKEA m <VAxp  4 Fp   F   ) Inthe   RfQXXRQQRfSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates      XXQRX3pXXX"^? ' 4dE4?6X"^@@)#{XQ{) Q    =JAMESALEXANDER,inhisofficialcapacityasthe   DirectoroftheAlabamaDepartmentofPublicSafety,and  theALABAMADEPARTMENTOFPUBLICSAFETY,y y ; e    X   Petitioners, ;        v.<3   3  MARTHASANDOVAL,individuallyand   onbehalfofallotherssimilarlysituated,     %a    X   Respondent.%%aV %       o? ' 4dE4?6o@@..#b  &bb &b   OnWritofCertioraritotheUnitedStates N CourtofAppealsfortheEleventhCircuit  :     T? ' 4dE4?6T@@..#G   GG  G  fBRIEFAMICUSCURIAEOFPACIFICLEGAL 3 FOUNDATIONANDCENTERFOREQUAL  OPPORTUNITYINSUPPORTOFPETITIONER c   c  f   ! 7!s? ' 4dEr"4?6"C! @@..#*"f"C"*"f  |"" |" f &  W XX3pW  W (  D D (! dD D  !  OfCounsel h# MarkT.Gallagher <$x  PacificLegalFoundation $+  10360OldPlacervilleRoad, %   Suite100 U&  Sacramento,California95827 'D  Telephone:(916)3622833 '  Facsimile:(916)3622932 n( JohnH.Findley  h#  2 CounselofRecord $W  2 PacificLegalFoundation $   2 10360OldPlacervilleRoad, %  2   Suite100 4&p   2 Sacramento,California95827 &#!  2 Telephone:(916)3622833 '"  2 Facsimile:(916)3622932 M(# fn (  D D ( 6)r# d  u  CounselforAmiciCuriae +0*0*l ): A )@ h+<PKE@ h+<PA 0*l $  uu8,7,XXdd8X3pX W X3pXXX3p  ! T!    kD D &    & 4%XX3p& 4%%& 4    QUESTIONPRESENTEDk  j '    D D   X3pX%& 4X3pXXX3p    gX3pXXX3p WhetherCongressintendedtocreateaprivatecauseof % a actioninfederalcourtagainstastateagencythatreceives  M federalgrantfunds,therebyallowingaprivateindividualto  9 enforcedisparateeffectregulationspromulgatedbyfederal  % agenciesunderSection602oftheCivilRightsActof1964and  bypassthefederalagencyreviewandenforcementprocess  establishedbyCongress.    u  *` *X3pXXgX3p@" TABLEOFCONTENTS    \;Page     I & 4  4 8 $ 4 D    $ $    QUESTIONPRESENTED\\>.'i'4 Ԉ @ |   &   4 8 $ 4 D   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#<.DD)$ $ #iii'Ԉ    &   4 8 $ 4 D   INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE#00>.-$ $ #1z'Ԉ     &   4 8 $ 4 D   STATEMENTOFTHECASE#00>.*$ $ #2Y'iԈ T   &   4 8 $ 4 D   SUMMARYOFARGUMENT#00>.($ $ #45'`EԈ `   &   4 8 $ 4 D   ARGUMENT#00>.$ $ #5'Ԉ      (5h83"3"   4 3_25h  I  .3  0 $   THISCOURTSHOULDHOLDTHAT ,  TITLEVIANDITSREGULATIONS   REACHNOFURTHERTHANTHE   FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTAND   THEREFOREIMPLEMENTING   REGULATIONMAYPROHIBITONLY  INTENTIONALDISCRIMINATION#00>.3$ $ #53_݌ x Ќ   {&   4 II.8 $   THEREISNOEVIDENCETO  DEMONSTRATETHATCONGRESS  INTENDEDTOCREATEAPRIVATE  CAUSEOFACTIONUNDER  SECTION602OFTITLEVI#=.NN0$ $ #13 {'Ԉ p   &   4 8 $ 4 D   CONCLUSION#=.DD$ $ #21 '  Ԉ      "<  \$ h$& 4%XX3p@~~   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  ]!Ԉ    \;Page X3pX%& 4Ԉ   @( Cases   4 JST0 4 D AlbermarlePaperCo.v.Moody, @ | 422U.S.405(1975)#=.*4 4 #12 ,h   &  8 4 D   Alexanderv.Choate,469U.S.287(1985)#hh;.rr=4 4 #4,9"TE't #Ԉ t   0 4 D AmericanTruckingAssociations,Inc.v.  Browner,175F.3d1027(D.C.Cir.1999),  cert.granted,120S.Ct.2193(2000)#=.<4 4 #12  0 4 D AtascaderoStateHospitalv.Scanlon,   473U.S.234(1985)#=.*4 4 #12   &  8 4 D   Babbittv.SweetHomeChapterofCommunities L  foraGreatOregon,515U.S.687(1995)#00>.>4 4 #2%TE'%Ԉ 8    &  8 4 D   Bennettv.Spear,520U.S.154(1997)#00>.00:4 4 #2&TE'D&Ԉ D    0 4 D Brownerv.AmericanTruckingAssociations,  Inc.,175F.3d1027(D.C.Cir.1999), x cert.granted,120S.Ct.2003(2000)#=.<4 4 #12 d &  8 4 D   Cannonv.UniversityofChicago,  441U.S.677(1979)#=.*4 4 #15y(TE'(Ԉ    &  8 4 D   CentralBankofDenverv.FirstInterstate  BankofDenver,511U.S.164(1994)#:.:4 4 #1820)TE')Ԉ    &  8 4 D   ChesterResidentsConcernedforQuality !P Livingv.Seif,132F.3d925(3dCir.1997), "< cert.granted,524U.S.915,vacatedas "( moot,524U.S.974(1998)#((1.04 4 #45,10,1719*TE'!*Ԉ #   &  8 4 D   ChevronU.S.A.,Inc.v.NaturalResources  %\ DefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837(1984)#00>.A4 4 #2X,TE' %h,Ԉ  &H   X3pXXX3pCityofBoernev.Flores,521U.S.507(1997)#X3pXXX3pv-#=.B12 T' &  8 4 D   ConsumerProductSafetyCommissionv.GTE ( Sylvania,Inc.,447U.S.102(1980)#=.BB:4 4 #18.'(..Ԉ )   &  8 4 D   X3pXXX3pCortv.Ash,422U.S.66(1975)#X3pXXX3pw/##=.4444 4 #135/' E/Ԉ     &  8 4 D   Curetonv.NationalCollegiateAthletic  H Association,198F.3d107(3dCir.1999)#00>.?4 4 #1L0TE' \0Ԉ  4   &  8 4 D   DouglasCountyv.Babbitt,516U.S.1042(1996)#00>.D4 4 #2f1TE'@ v1Ԉ @ |   &  8 4 D   GuardiansAssociationv.CivilServiceCommission  oftheCityofNewYork,463U.S.582(1983)#9.RRC4 4 #4,78J2TE'Z2Ԉ t   &  8 4 D   Helveringv.Hallock,309U.S.106(1940)#=.>4 4 #20w3'3Ԉ    &  8 4 D   InternationalBrotherhoodofTeamstersv.Daniel, @ 439U.S.551(1979)#=.*4 4 #15V4'f4Ԉ ,    &  8 4 D   LarryP.v.Riles,793F.2d969(9thCir.1984)#=.D4 4 #11e5TE'8u5Ԉ 8t    &  8 4 D   Lauv.Nichols,414U.S.563(1974)#00>.84 4 #4J6TE'Z6Ԉ     X3pXXX3p0 4 D NationalAssociationfortheAdvancement   ofColoredPeoplev.FederalPower   Commission,425U.S.662(1976)#X3pXXX3p"7##=.64 4 #11   &  8 4 D   Pattersonv.McLeanCreditUnion, $ 491U.S.164(1989) " d\#:.*4 4 #1920R8TE'b8Ԉ    &  8 4 D   PublicEmployeesRetirementSystemofOhiov. $` Betts,492U.S.158(1989)#=.14 4 #18{9TE'$9Ԉ L   &  8 4 D   RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke, ` 438U.S.265(1978)#00>.*4 4 #7:TE'`:Ԉ L   &  8 4 D   Ricev.Cayetano,528U.S.495(2000)#00>.\\:4 4 #2;TE' ;Ԉ     &  8 4 D   Sandovalv.Hagan,197F.3d484 !( (11thCir.1999)#((1.BB'4 4 #35,1011,17w<TE'!<Ԉ "   &  8 4 D   Shawv.Reno,509U.S.630(1993)#00>.HH64 4 #2~=TE'($=Ԉ ($d   &  8 4 D   St.MarysHonorCenterv.Hicks,509U.S.502(1993)#00>.J4 4 #2T>TE'x%d>Ԉ x%   &  8 4 D   SteelCompanyv.CitizensforaBetter & Environment,523U.S.83(1998)#00>.64 4 #2A?TE'&Q?Ԉ '   &  8 4 D   Suterv.ArtistM.,503U.S.347(1992)#=.jj<4 4 #13Q@0')a@Ԉ )@   &  8 4 D   X3pXXX3pThompsonv.Thompson,484U.S.174(1988)#X3pXXX3ppA##=.>4 4 #14.A0'T*>AԈ T*    &  8 4 D   ToucheRoss&Co.v.Redington,   442U.S.560(1979)#:.*4 4 #1315UBTE' eBԈ     &  8 4 D   TransamericaMortgageAdvisors,Inc.v.  < Lewis,444U.S.11(1979)#:.nn04 4 #1314VCTE' fCԈ  (   &  8 4 D   UnitedStatesv.Fordice,505U.S.717(1992)#^^8.B4 4 #7,911eD0'<uDԈ <x   &  8 4 D   UnitedStatesv.Morrison,120S.Ct.1740(2000)#00>.F4 4 #9ME0']EԈ    &  8 4 D   UnitedStatesv.PhiladelphiaNationalBank,  374U.S.321(1963)#=.*4 4 #183FTE'CFԈ    &  8 4 D   ValeriaG.v.Wilson,12F.Supp.2d1007 T  (N.D.Cal.1998)#:.xx'4 4 #1,11>GTE'NGԈ @    &  8 4 D   VillageofArlingtonHeightsv.MetropolitanHousing T  DevelopmentCorporation,429U.S.252(1977)#00>.66C4 4 #6FHTE'TVHԈ @|    X3pXXX3p0 4 D WardsCovePackingCo.,Inc.v.   Atonio,490U.S.642(1989)#X3pXXX3ppI##:.24 4 #6,12 |  &  8 4 D   Washingtonv.Davis,426U.S.229(1976)#:.=4 4 #6,11^JԈ'nJԈ    &  8 4 D   X3pXXX3pWatsonv.FortWorthBank&Trust, X 487U.S.977(1988)#X3pXXX3p~K##=.*4 4 #12?KԈ'OKԈ D   @99  AlabamaConstitution  X Amend.509<.  23  @& Statutes  4 42U.S.C.2000d1:.(1517 H! @% Regulations  " 28C.F.R..42.104(b)(2)00>.>>.3 #$ 34C.F.R.100.3(b)(6)(i)=.dd/11 8%t 49C.F.R.21.5(b)(2)00>.DD+3 &  ()d @( Rules    UnitedStatesSupremeCourtRule37.300>.:1  P  4 Rule37.600>.>> 1 d  @$ Miscellaneous    X3pXXX3p0 4 D RogerClegg,TheBadLawofDisparate @ Impact,ThePublicInterest,Winter,2000#X3pXXX3pO##=.22@4 4 #12 , 0 4 D BadfordC.Mank,IsThereaPrivateCauseof @| ActionUnderEPAsTitleVIRegulations?: ,h TheNeedtoEmpowerEnvironmentalJustice T  Plaintiffs,24Colum.J._Envtl_.L.1(1999)#9.FFB4 4 #14,18 @  0 4 D JimmyWhite,EnvironmentalJustice: T  IsDisparateImpactEnough?, @|  50MercerL.Rev.1155(1999)#=.44 4 #14 ,h   %j7 |  j7 j8e3peXXd,XXd8 j  dd  ! T!  kD D &    & 4%XX3p& 4%%& 4    INTERESTOFAMICICURIAEkHTropo MT ' tT   D D   X3pX%& 4X3pXXX3p   Pursuantto L SupremeCourtRule37.3,PacificLegal  P Foundation(PLF)andtheCenterforEqualOpportunity  < respectfullysubmitthisbriefamicuscuriaeinsupportof  ( Petitioner.O N  1      ׀Writtenconsentforamiciparticipationinthiscase   hasbeenobtainedfromallpartiesandhasbeenlodgedwiththe  ClerkoftheCourt.   PacificLegalFoundationisthelargestandmost < experiencednonprofitpublicinterestlawfoundationofitskind ( inAmerica.Foundedin1973,PLFprovidesavoiceinthe   courtsformainstreamAmericanswhobelieveinlimited   government,privatepropertyrights,individualfreedom,and   freeenterprise.PLFlitigatesnationwideinstateandfederal   courtswiththesupportofthousandsofcitizensfromcoastto   coast.PLFisheadquarteredinSacramento,California,andhas t  officesinMiami,Florida;Honolulu,Hawaii;Bellevue, ` Washington;andaliaisonofficeinAnchorage,Alaska. L  AttorneysforPacificLegalFoundationhavepreviously  litigatedquestionsregardingthescopeandmeaningofTitleVI  oftheCivilRightsActof1964.Forexample,PacificLegal t FoundationattorneysrepresentedtheCaliforniaStateBoardof ` EducationinacasethatallegedCaliforniasProposition227, L aninitiativereplacingbilingualeducationwithEnglish 8t immersion,violatedfederalregulationspromulgatedpursuant $ ` toSection602ofTitleVI. P ValeriaG.v.Wilson,12F.Supp.2d !L 1007(N.D.Cal.1998).PacificLegalFoundationalso !8 participatedasamicusin R Curetonv.NationalCollegiate "$ AthleticAssociation,198F.3d107(3dCir.1999),acase # allegingthatminimumstandardizedtestingscoreshada   disparateimpactonAfricanAmericanstudentathletesin   violationofregulationspromulgatedunderSection602ofthe   CivilRightsAct.    PLFhasalonghistoryofadvocacybeforethisCourtand   hasparticipatedinnumerouscasesinvolvingtheinterpretation  offederallaws.Forexample,PLFwasamicuscuriaein T Steel  Companyv.CitizensforaBetterEnvironment,523U.S.  83(1998); V Bennettv.Spear,520U.S.154(1997); X Douglas  Countyv.Babbitt,516U.S.1042(1996); Z Babbittv.Sweet t  HomeChapterofCommunitiesforaGreatOregon,515U.S. `  687(1995);and \ ChevronU.S.A.,Inc.v.NaturalResources L  DefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837(1984). 8t   TheCenterforEqualOpportunity(CEO)isaDistrictof   Columbianonprofitcorporation.CEOsmainpurposeisto t  studyissuesconcerningrace,ethnicity,andlanguage.CEOhas ` participatedactivelyinawidevarietyofcivilrightscases. L  ^ Ricev.Cayetano,528U.S.495(2000); ` Shawv.Reno,509U.S. 8t 630(1993);and b St.MarysHonorCenterv.Hicks,509U.S. $` 502(1993). L  PLFandCEObelievetheirpublicpolicyperspectiveand ` litigationexperiencewillprovideanadditionalviewpointon L thelegalissuespresentedbythiscase. 8t   kD D &    & 4%XX3p& 4%%& 4    STATEMENTOFTHECASEkfropo Mf ' Df   D D   X3pX%& 4X3pXXX3p   AlabamahasamendeditsconstitutiontomakeEnglishthe ! officiallanguageofthestate.Ala.Const.amend.509.d N  2      ׀Acting " underthisamendment,theAlabamaDepartmentofPublic   Safetyadoptedapolicyrequiringthatalldriverslicense   examinationsbegiveninEnglish. o Sandovalv.Hagan,   197F.3d484,502(11thCir.1999).MarthaSandovalfiledsuit   againsttheDepartmentanditsDirector,challengingthe t  Englishonlyrequirement.Thegravamenofthesuitalleged ` thatAlabamaspolicydiscriminatedonthebasisofnational L origininviolationoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnited 8t StatesConstitution,TitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964, $` anditsimplementingregulations. L   TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictof `  Alabamacertifiedaplaintiffsclassconsistingofalllegal L  residentsoftheStateofAlabamawhoareotherwisequalified 8t  toobtainadriverslicensebutcannotdosobecauseofthe $`  Englishlanguagetestingrequirement.Sandoval,197F.3dat L  488.ThecourtultimatelyconcludedthatAlabamasEnglish 8 onlydriverslicenserequirementhasadisparateimpactonthe $ basisofnationaloriginandthusranafoulofregulations  promulgatedbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentof  Transportation.q N  3      ׀ThecourtenjoinedtheuseoftheEnglishonly   testingpolicy.Id.at489.   TheEleventhCircuitCourtofAppealsaffirmed.r N  4      ׀Relying    onEleventhCircuitprecedentthecourtconcludedthataprivate   rightofactionexistsunderregulationspromulgatedpursuantto   Section602ofTitleVI.Id.at504.Thecourtalsoobserved   thattheonlyothercircuittohaveaddressedthequestionin t  detailhasalsoconcludedthatanimpliedprivaterightofaction ` existsunderregulationspromulgatedunderSection602.Id.at L 504(citing t ChesterResidentsConcernedforQualityLivingv. 8t Seif,132F.3d925,93637(3dCir.1997),cert.granted,524 $` U.S.915,vacatedasmoot,524U.S.974(1998)).Thecourt L  alsobaseditsconclusiononthisCourts strong[]suggest[ion] 8  thatanimpliedcauseofactionexistsunderSection602.Id. $  TheEleventhCircuit,althoughrecognizingthatthisCourthad   notsquarelyansweredthequestion,ultimatelyheldthata close   readingof v Lauv.Nichols,414U.S.563(1974), x Guardians   Associationv.CivilServiceCommissionoftheCityofNew   York,463U.S.582(1983),and z Alexanderv.Choate,469U.S.  287(1985),supportedtheconclusionthatanimpliedprivate p rightofactionexistsunderSection602.Id.Basedonthislegal \ conclusion,thecourtheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnoterrinits H conclusionthattheEnglishonlyexaminationrequirement 4p constitutedadisparateimpactonthebasisofnationalorigin.  \ Id.at511.  H   kD D &    & 4%XX3p& 4%%& 4    SUMMARYOFARGUMENTkw  ?x '`'w \ D D   X3pX%& 4X3pXXX3p   Thequestionpresentedbythiscase,whetherCongress   intendedtocreateaprivatecauseofactionallowingprivate ! individualstoenforcedisparateimpactregulationspromulgated   byfederalagenciesunderSection602oftheCivilRightsAct   of1964,requiresthisCourttoaddresstwoseparate,but   ultimatelyintertwined,issues.First,mayTitleVI,andthe   agencyregulationspromulgatedunderthatstatute,extend t  beyondtheFourteenthAmendmenttoprohibitnotonly ` purposefuldiscrimination,butalsoconducthavingadisparate L impact?Second,assumingTitleVIregulationsdoprohibit 8t conducthavingadisparateimpact,didCongressintendto $` createaprivaterightofactiontoallowindividualstoenforce L  thoseregulations?Bothquestionsshouldbeansweredinthe 8  negative. $    kD D &    & 4%XX3p& 4%%& 4    ARGUMENTku}  } '8} 8t  D D   X3pX%& 4X3pXXX3p  & 4%XX3p@* I       THISCOURTSHOULDHOLDTHAT  TITLEVIANDITSREGULATIONSREACH  NOFURTHERTHANTHEFOURTEENTH  AMENDMENTANDTHEREFORE  IMPLEMENTINGREGULATIONMAY  PROHIBIT% l   ONLYINTENTIONALDISCRIMINATION  t 2X3pX%& 4 BeforeaddressingthequestionofwhetherCongress  intendedtocreateaprivaterightofactiontoenforcedisparate  impactagencyregulationspromulgatedunderSection602,this  Courtmustfirstaddressamorebasicquestionregardingthe   scopeandpurposeofthatsection:Whetherregulationsthat t! prohibitdiscriminatoryimpactsarevalidexercisesofagency `" authorityunderSection602.Thecourtbelowheldthat L# agenciesdohavetheauthoritytocreateregulationsthatprohibit 8$t recipientsoffederalfundingfromengaginginactionsthat $%` resultinadisparateimpactonthebasisofrace,color,or &L nationalorigin. | Sandoval,197F.3dat50102.Othercourts &8 havereachedthesameconclusion.Seif,132F.3dat929.A '$ reviewofthisCourtsprecedentsreveals,however,thatthis (  conclusionmaybeerroneous.If,asthisCourthaspreviously )! held,TitleVIprotectionextendsnofurtherthantheFourteenth   Amendment,anyagencyregulationpurportingtoincorporatea   disparateimpactstandardwouldbeinvalid.Beforeanswering   thequestionofwhetherSection602contemplatesaprivate   causeofactiontoenforcedisparateimpactregulations,this t  CourtshouldfirstanswerthequestionofwhetherSection602 ` evenallowsforthepromulgationofdisparateimpact L regulations.} N  5       8t  TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStates  Constitutionproscribesgovernmentalconductwhichhasa t  discriminatorypurposeorintent. ~ Washingtonv.Davis,426 `  U.S.229,242(1976);  VillageofArlingtonHeightsv. L  MetropolitanHousingDevelopmentCorporation,429U.S. 8t  252,26465(1977).Arulefocusingonimpactalone,andnot $`  intentorpurpose,would raiseseriousquestionsaboutand L  threatena wholerangeoftax,welfare,publicservice, 8 regulatory,andlicensingstatutes.  Washingtonv.Davis,426 $ U.S.at248.AlthoughthisCourtsmostrecentdecision  regardingthescopeofTitleVImakesclearthatthestatute  extendsnofurtherthantheFourteenthAmendment,  United   Statesv.Fordice,505U.S.717,732n.7(1992),earlier   decisionshaveledthelowercourtstoconcludethatagencies   maypromulgateregulationsthatproscribenotonlystateaction   thatinvolvesdiscriminatoryintent,butalsoactionshavinga t  disparateimpactonthebasisofraceornationalorigin.This ` casepresentsthisCourtwithanopportunitytoclarifythescope L andreachofTitleVIanditsregulationsandestablishthat 8t regulations,likethestatute,mayextendnofurtherthanthe $` FourteenthAmendment. L   ThisCourtsinitialpronouncementsonthesubject `  indicatedthatTitleVIwascoextensivewiththeConstitution. L   Inviewoftheclearlegislativeintent,TitleVImustbeheldto 8t  proscribeonlythoseracialclassificationsthatwouldviolatethe $`  EqualProtectionClauseortheFifthAmendment.  Regentsof L  theUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke,438U.S.265,287(1978) 8 (opinionofPowell,J.);id.at352(opinionofBrennan,White, $ Marshall,andBlackmun,JJ.)( TitleVIsdefinitionofracial  discriminationisabsolutelycoextensivewiththe  Constitutions).     GuardiansAssociationv.CivilServiceCommissionofthe 8 CityofNewYork,463U.S.582,involvedachallengebyblack $ andHispanicpoliceofficerstowrittenexaminationsusedby  theCityofNewYorktomakeentrylevelappointmentstothe  policedepartment.  463U.S.at584.Thechallengewas   broughtunderbothTitleVIandregulationspromulgated ! pursuanttothestatue.Thecourtofappealshaddeterminedthat " proofofdiscriminatoryintentwasrequiredunderboththe p# statuteanditsimplementingregulations.Id.at584.The \$ decisionwasaffirmed. N  6      ׀However,fiveJusticesrejectedthe H% notionthatproofofdiscriminatoryintentwasrequiredunder   TitleVIanditsimplementingregulations.JusticeWhite   explainedtheviewsofthefiveJustices:   8  Thefiveofusreachtheconclusionthatthe  ( CourtofAppealserredbydifferentroutes.   JUSTICESTEVENS,joinedbyJUSTICE  BRENNANandJUSTICEBLACKMUN,reasons  that,althoughTitleVIitselfrequiresproofof  discriminatoryintent,theadministrativeregulations  incorporatingadisparateimpactstandardarevalid. t  Post,at642645.JUSTICEMARSHALLwould `  holdthat,underTitleVIitself,proofofdisparate L  impactdiscriminationisallthatisnecessary.Post, 8t  at623.IagreewithJUSTICEMARSHALLthat $`  discriminatoryanimusisnotanessentialelementof L  aviolationofTitleVI.Ialsobelievethatthe 8 regulationsarevalid,evenassuming,arguendo,that $ TitleVI,inandofitself,doesnotproscribe  disparateimpactdiscrimination.     GuardiansAssociationv.CivilServiceCommissionoftheCity L ofNewYork,463U.S.at584n.2.FourJusticesalsoheldthat 8 theCourtsdecisionin  Bakke,thatTitleVIwascoextensive $ withtheConstitution,shouldcontrol.Id.at611(Powell,J.,  concurring,joinedbytheChiefJustice,andRehnquist,J.);id.  at615(OConnor,J.,concurring)( Becausepetitionershave   failedtoproveintentionaldiscrimination,Iwouldaffirmthe ! judgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.).TheCourthassincemade " clearthatseparateopinionscannotbeaddeduptoyieldan   opinionfortheCourt,UnitedStatesv.Morrison,120S.Ct.   1740,1757(2000).    Theissuewasrevisited,albeitindirectly,in  Alexanderv.  ( Choate,469U.S.287.Inholdingthatastatesreductioninthe   numberofdaysitwouldpayhospitalsonbehalfofMedicaid  recipientsdidnotviolateSection504oftheRehabilitationAct  of1973,theCourtrevieweditsholdingin  Guardians.  8 [T]heCourtheldthatactionshavinganunjustifiable ( disparateimpactonminoritiescouldberedressed   throughagencyregulationsdesignedtoimplement   thepurposesofTitleVI.Inessence,then,weheld   thatTitleVIhaddelegatedtotheagenciesinthefirst   instancethecomplexdeterminationofwhatsortsof   disparateimpactsuponminoritiesconstituted t  sufficientlysignificantsocialproblems,andwere ` readilyenoughremediable,towarrantalteringthe L practicesofthefederalgranteesthathadproduced 8t thoseimpacts.$`     Alexander,469U.S.at29394(footnoteomitted).  Alexander t didnotrequirethisCourttodeterminethereachofTitleVI. ` Instead,theCourtmerelycomparedTitleVIandits L implementingregulationswithSection504ofthe 8t RehabilitationAct.Id.at293.Totheextentthat  Alexander $ ` simplyrestatestheholdingof  Guardiansitdoesnothingto !L furthertheunderstandingofTitleVIsreachandscope. !8  TheCourtdid,however,returntothequestionofwhether L# TitleVIwascoextensivewiththeFourteenthAmendmentin 8$t UnitedStatesv.  Fordice,505U.S.717.In  FordicetheCourt $%` wascalledupontodeterminetheproperstandardtobeapplied &L inevaluatingwhetherapublicuniversitysystemhadcomplied &8 withitsobligationtodismantleadejuresegregateduniversity '$ system.Respondingdirectlytoprivatepetitionersargument (  thatthestatesystemviolateda regulation adoptedpursuantto )! TitleVI,thisCourtreemphasizeditsholdingin  BakkethatTitle   VIreachesnofurtherthantheFourteenthAmendment.   8  PrivatepetitionersreiterateinthisCourttheir  < assertionthatthestatesystemalsoviolatesTitleVI,  ( citingaregulationtothatstatutewhichrequires   Statesto takeaffirmativeactiontoovercome  theeffectsofpriordiscrimination.34CFR  100.3(b)(6)(i)(1991). Ourcasesmakeclear,and  thepartiesdonotdisagree,thatthereachofTitle  VIsprotectionextendsnofurtherthanthe t  FourteenthAmendment. SeeRegentsofUniv.of `  Californiav.  Bakke,438U.S.265,287,57L.Ed.2d L  750,98S.Ct.2733(1978)(opinionofPowell,J.); 8t  id.,at328(opinionofBrennan,WHITE,Marshall, $`  andBLACKMUN,JJ.,concurringinjudgmentin L  partanddissentinginpart);seealso  GuardiansAssn. 8 v.CivilServiceCommnofNewYorkCity,463U.S. $ 582,610611,77L.Ed.2d866,103S.Ct.3221  (1983)(Powell,J.,concurringinjudgment);id.,at  612613(OCONNOR,J.,concurringinjudgment);  id.,at639643(STEVENS,J.,dissenting).Wethus  treattheissuesinthesecasesastheyareimplicated  undertheConstitution.p   UnitedStatesv.  Fordice,505U.S.at732n.7(emphasisadded).   Takentogether  Fordiceand  Bakkestandforthe !L propositionthatCongressintendedTitleVI,andallregulations !8 enactedpursuanttothestatute,toproscribeonlythatconduct "$ prohibitedbytheConstitution.Thischainofauthority, # however,isnotunbroken.Lowercourtshavelookedto $   Guardiansand  AlexandertosupportthepositionthatTitleVI % anditsregulationsexceedthereachoftheFourteenth & Amendmentandproscribeconductwhichhasadiscriminatory ' impact,regardlessofintent,onthebasisofraceandnational p(  origin.  Sandoval,197F.3dat502;  Seif,132F.3dat929.These \)! courtshavegrudginglyacknowledgedthisCourtsholdingin H* "   Fordice,buttheyhaveultimatelychosennottofollowthat   decision.TheCourtbelowbrushedpast  Fordicebyexplaining   that [w]hilenotaltogetherclear,webelievethefootnote   merelyconfirmsthataTitleVIsuit,basedonthestatutealone,   mustproveintentionaldiscriminationsimilartoanEqual t  Protectionclaim.  Sandoval,197F.3dat507n.24.Thisisa ` curiousexplanationgiventhatpetitionersin  Fordicebasedtheir L claimona regulation (34C.F.R.100.3(b)(6)(i)),andnotthe 8t  statute alone.  Fordice,505U.S.at732n.7. $`  Therulearticulatedby  Bakkeand  Fordiceisalso t  consistentwiththerationaleunderlying  Washingtonv.Davis. `  TheretheCourtwarnedthatallowinganequalprotectionclaim L  toproceedunderadisparateimpacttheorywouldthreaten,and 8t  perhapsinvalidate, awholerangeoftax,welfare,public $`  service,regulatory,andlicensingstatutes,  Davis,426U.S.at L  248.Byignoringtheteachingsof  Bakkeand  Fordiceand 8 allowingTitleVIactionstoproceedunderadisparateimpact $ theory,lowercourtshaveturnedthestatuteintotheweaponof  choiceforattackingdemocraticallyenactedsocialpolicyinthe  federalcourts.  LarryP.v.Riles,793F.2d969,981(9thCir.  1984);  ValeriaG.v.Wilson,12F.Supp.2d1007(N.D.Cal.  1998)(Disparateimpactchallengefiledagainststateinitiative  replacingafailedbilingualeducationprogramwithamore p effectiveEnglishimmersionsystem.). \  ThisCourthasacknowledgedincaseslikeWashingtonv.   Davisthatthedifferenceindisparateimpactversusdisparate ! treatmentcausesofactionisoneofkind,notjustdegree. " Becauseintentisirrelevantinadisparateimpactcase,that p# causeofactionisfundamentallydifferentfromadisparate \$ treatmentclaim.Justasaregulatorcannotbanevenintentional H% discriminationwithoutstatutoryauthority,seeNational 4&p AssociationfortheAdvancementofColoredPeoplev.Federal  '\ PowerCommission,425U.S.662(1976),soitisactingultra  (H  viresifitredefinesdiscriminationinsuchafundamentalway (4! withoutastatutorybasis.ThisCourtdisallowedCongress ) " attempttotransformadisparatetreatmentstandardintoa   disparateimpactstandardinCityofBoernev.Flores,521U.S.   507(1997).IfCongress,whichhasauthoritytoenforcethe   FourteenthAmendmentunderSection5,canbebarredfrom   makingthistransformation,thensurelyanagencycanbeas t  well.Especiallytroublinginthisregardisthefactthat,inthe ` nondiscriminationcontext,abanondisparateimpactwilloften L threatennotonlya wholerangeofotherwiselegitimatelaws, 8t butwillinfactencourageraceconsciousnessanddisparate $` treatment!theverybehaviorCongresssoughttoban.See L  WardsCovePackingCo.,Inc.v.Atonio,490U.S.at65253; 8  Watsonv.FortWorthBank&Trust,487U.S.977,99294& $  n.2(1988)(pluralityopinion);AlbermarlePaperCo.v.Moody,   422U.S.405,449(1975)(Blackmun,J.,concurringin   judgment);RogerClegg,TheBadLawofDisparateImpact,   ThePublicInterest,Winter,2000,at79.Finally,theagencys   rewritingofthestatuteraisesotherconstitutionalproblemsas  well,sincetheregulationsarebeingappliedheretoastate p governmentinamannerthatCongresshasnotapprovedatall, \ letaloneapproved unequivocally,seeAtascaderoState H Hospitalv.Scanlon,473U.S.234,242(1985).Andif 4p Congresshasgivenagenciessuchbroadauthoritytowrite  \ regulations,thenproblemsareraisedunderthenondelegation  H doctrine,seeX3pXXX3pAmericanTruckingAssociations,Inc.v.Browner, 4 175F.3d1027(D.C.Cir.1999),cert.granted,120S.Ct.2193   (2000),andBrownerv.AmericanTruckingAssociations,Inc.,   175F.3d1027(D.C.Cir.1999),cert.granted,120S.Ct.2003 ! (2000).#X3pXXX3p# "  AllowingTitleVIregulationstobewieldedinsuchan #4 imprecisemannercontravenestheintentofCongressand $  ignorestheholdingsofthisCourt.ThisCourtshouldusethis %  casetoreaffirmtheprincipleestablishedin  Bakkeandechoed & in  Fordice,thatTitleVI,anditsimplementingregulations,can '  beextendednofurtherthantheFourteenthAmendment.  (! @) & 4%XX3pII       THEREISNOEVIDENCETO  P DEMONSTRATETHATCONGRESS  < INTENDEDTOCREATEAPRIVATECAUSE  ( OFACTIONUNDER  SECTION602OFTITLEVI #X3pX%& 4#    Separateandapartfromthequestionofwhether (d implementingregulationsthatincorporateadisparateimpact P standardareinvalidbecausetheyexceedthereachofthe < FourteenthAmendmentisthequestionofwhetheranimplied ( privaterightofactionexistsunderSection602.Determining   whetheranimpliedprivaterightofactionexistsunderthe   statuteissolelyaquestionofcongressionalintent.Here,   neithertheplainlanguageofthestatute,northelegislative   historygeneratedbytheCongresswhichenactedSection602,   demonstratesanintenttocreateaprivatecauseofaction. t  Absentthisintent,therecanbenoprivaterightofaction. `  ThisCourthasconsistentlyheldthataprivaterightof  actionwillbefoundonlyifthereexistsaffirmativeevidence  thatCongressintendedtocreatesuchanaction.  Transamerica  MortgageAdvisors,Inc.v.Lewis,444U.S.11,1516(1979) t ( [W]hatmustultimatelybedeterminediswhetherCongress ` intendedtocreatetheprivateremedyasserted....);  Touche L Ross&Co.v.Redington,442U.S.560,568(1979)( [O]ur 8t taskislimitedsolelytodeterminingwhetherCongressintended $ ` tocreatetheprivaterightofaction....);  Suterv.ArtistM., !L 503U.S.347,364(1992)( Themostimportantinquiryhereas !8 welliswhetherCongressintendedtocreatetheprivateremedy "$ soughtbytheplaintiffs.). N  7      ׀ #  ThisCourthasnotyethadanopportunitytodetermine   whetherCongressintendedtocreateaprivaterightofaction   underSection602. [B]ecauseGuardiansdidnotdirectly   addresswhetheraprivaterightofactionexistsunderTitleVIs   implementingregulations,theissueremainsunresolved. t    BadfordC.Mank,IsThereaPrivateCauseofActionUnder ` EPAsTitleVIRegulations?:TheNeedtoEmpower L EnvironmentalJusticePlaintiffs,24Colum.J.Envtl.L.1,34 8t (1999)(footnotesomitted).Accord  JimmyWhite, $` EnvironmentalJustice:IsDisparateImpactEnough?, L  50MercerL.Rev.1155,1174(1999)( Whetheraprivateright 8  ofactionexistedundertheregulationswasnot,however, $  explicitlyaddressedinGuardiansAssn.).Areviewofboth   thelanguageandlegislativehistoryofSection602revealsno   evidencethatCongressintendedtocreateaprivatecauseof   actionunderthestatute.󀀀    Thefirstandbestevidenceofcongressionalintentis,of $ course,thelanguageofthestatuteitselfandwherethelanguage  ofthestatuteisclear,theinquiryintolegislativeintent  generallyneedgonofurther.In  ToucheRossthisCourt  explainedthatthesearchforcongressionalintenttocreatea   privaterightofactionmustbeginwiththelanguageofthe   statute.   8 Instead,ourtaskislimitedsolelytodetermining  ( whetherCongressintendedtocreatetheprivateright   ofactionassertedbySIPCandtheTrustee.Andas  withanycaseinvolvingtheinterpretationofa  statute,ouranalysismustbeginwiththelanguageof  thestatuteitself.     ToucheRoss&Co.,442U.S.at568(citing  Cannonv.   UniversityofChicago,441U.S.677,689(1979));International   BrotherhoodofTeamstersv.Daniel,439U.S.551,558(1979).    ThereisnothingonthefaceofSection602ofTitleVI <  indicatingthatCongressintendedforthislegislationtocreate (  aprivatecauseofaction.Tothecontrary,thestructureand  languageofSection602showsthatCongressintendedthatonly  federalagencieswouldenforcetheprovision.Section602  provides:  8 EachFederaldepartmentandagencywhichis ( empoweredtoextendFederalfinancialassistanceto  anyprogramoractivity,bywayofgrant,loan,or  contractotherthanacontractofinsuranceor  guaranty,isauthorizedanddirectedtoeffectuatethe  provisionsofSection2000dofthistitlewithrespect   tosuchprogramoractivitybyissuingrules, t! regulations,orordersofgeneralapplicabilitywhich `" shallbeconsistentwithachievementofthe L# objectivesofthestatuteauthorizingthefinancial 8$t assistanceinconnectionwithwhichtheactionis $%` taken.Nosuchrule,regulation,orordershall &L becomeeffectiveunlessanduntilapprovedbythe &8 President. Compliancewithanyrequirement '$ adoptedpursuanttothissectionmaybeeffected (  (1)bytheterminationoforrefusaltograntorto )! continueassistanceundersuchprogramoractivity   toanyrecipientastowhomtherehasbeenan   expressfindingontherecord,afteropportunityfor   hearing,ofafailuretocomplywithsuch   requirement...or(2)byanyothermeans t  authorizedbylaw:Provided,however,that  no ` suchactionshallbetakenuntilthedepartmentor L agencyconcernedhasadvisedtheappropriate 8t personorpersonsofthefailuretocomplywiththe $` requirementandhasdeterminedthatcompliance L  cannotbesecuredbyvoluntarymeans .Inthecase 8  ofanyactionterminating,orrefusingtograntor $  continue,assistancebecauseoffailuretocomply   witharequirementimposedpursuanttothissection,   theheadoftheFederaldepartmentoragencyshall   filewiththecommitteesoftheHouseandSenate   havinglegislativejurisdictionovertheprogramor  activityinvolvedafullwrittenreportofthe p circumstancesandthegroundsforsuchaction.No \ suchactionshallbecomeeffectiveuntilthirtydays H haveelapsedafterthefilingofsuchreport.4p   42U.S.C.2000d1(emphasisadded).   Section602,onitsface,chargesthefederalgovernment  withensuringthatitsrules,regulations,andordersofgeneral  applicabilityareadheredtobyrecipientsoffederalfunding.   ThestructureofSection602contemplatesthatthefederal ! government,andnotprivateplaintiffs,willensurecompliance " withanyrequirementadoptedpursuanttoSection602.The p# statuteestablishestwoprongstoensurethatrecipientsof \$ federalfundscomplywithfederalmandates.Plainly,only H% federalagenciescanenforcethefirstprong:terminationor 4&p denialoffinancialassistance.Thesecondprong, anyother  '\ meansauthorizedbylaw,inisolation,couldbereadbroadly  (H  toincludeinjunctivereliefnotlimitedtofederalagencies. (4! However,thisreadingofthestatutebecomesimpossiblewhen ) " the anyothermeansauthorizedbylawlanguageisreadinthe   contextofthestatutoryscheme.Theprovisionimmediately   followingthe anyothermeanslanguagemakesclearthat   CongressintendedtoplacetheenforcementofSection602   exclusivelyinthehandsofthefederalgovernment.Thestatute t  dictatesthat nosuchactionshallbetakenuntilthedepartment ` oragencyconcernedhassoughtandfailedtoobtain L compliance byvoluntarymeans.Id.Beforeafederalagency 8t mayterminatefundingorassistance,theheadofthat $` departmentmustfileareportwiththecommitteesoftheHouse L  andSenatewhichhavelegislativejurisdictionovertheprogram 8  oractivityatissue.Thislanguage,aswellasthestructureof $  thestatutoryscheme,plainlydoesnotenvisionaprivateright   ofaction.Rather,thestatutechargesthefederalagenciesand   departmentsthatcontrolthepursestringswithensuringthatthe   departmentsoragenciesrulesandregulationsarefollowedby   therecipientsoffederalfunding.   Unabletofindevidenceofcongressionalintentontheface  ofSection602,lowercourtshavedelvedintothestatutes  legislativehistoryinsearchofevidencethatCongressintended  tocreateaprivaterightofaction.Thesejudicialexpeditions  havegoneastray,aslowercourtshaveerroneouslylookedto  thelegislativeintentoftheCongresswhichamendedthestatute p in1987,insteadoftheCongresswhichactuallypassedthe \ statutein1964.Thecourtbelowdidnotengageinan H  independentreviewofthelegislativehistoryofSection602. 4!p Instead,thecourtreliedontheThirdCircuitsevaluationofthe  "\ statuteslegislativehistory.  Sandoval,197F.3dat504( The  #H Seifcourtthendeterminedthatanimpliedprivaterightofaction #4 wassupportedbothbyTitleVIslegislativeschemeand $  legislativehistory.).In  ChesterResidentsConcernedfor %  QualityLivingv.Seif,132F.3dat93637,theThirdCircuit & reviewedthelegislativehistorysurroundingthe1987 '  amendmentstoTitleVIand,basedsolelyonthisevidence, (!  concludedthattherewas someindicationinthelegislative )" history ofanintenttocreateaprivaterightofaction,in   satisfactionoftheCortfactors.  Seif,132F.3dat934.     Thecourtofappealsrelianceonthesubsequent  < legislativehistoryofthe1987amendmentsconflictswiththe  ( rulingsofthisCourt.  CentralBankofDenverv.FirstInterstate   BankofDenver,511U.S.164(1994),requiredthisCourtto  determinewhetherprivatecivilliabilityunder10(b)ofthe  SecuritiesExchangeActof1934extendedbeyondthose  personswhoengagedinmanipulativeanddeceptivepractices  tothosewhomerelyaidedandabettedtheviolation.Inan t  attempttodemonstratethattheActdidcoveraidingand `  abettingliability,respondentinthatcasereliedupon1983and L  1988CongressionalCommitteeReports.ThisCourtrejected 8t  thisattempttouse1983and1988indiciaofcongressional $`  intent. # ,I,XX3p,I,,,IԁX3pX,,IX3pXXX3p  [W]ehaveobservedonmorethanoneoccasionthat L  theinterpretationgivenbyoneCongress(oracommitteeor 8 Memberthereof)toanearlierstatuteisoflittleassistancein $ discerningthemeaningofthatstatute.CentralBank,  511U.S.at185(quoting  PublicEmployeesRetirementSystem  ofOhiov.Betts,492U.S.158,168(1989)). Inevaluatingthe  weighttobeattachedtothesestatements,webeginwiththeoft  repeatedwarningthattheviewsofasubsequentCongressform  ahazardousbasisforinferringtheintentofanearlierone.  ,I,XX3p,I,,,IԁX3pX,,IX3pXXX3p  ݀ p   ConsumerProductSafetyCommissionv.GTESylvania,Inc., \ 447U.S.102,11718(1980)(quotinginpart  UnitedStatesv. H  PhiladelphiaNationalBank,374U.S.321,34849(1963)).As 4!p onecommentatorsummarizedthislineofauthority [s]everal  "\ SupremeCourtdecisionssuggestthataprivaterightofaction  #H maybeimpliedbycourtsonlyiftheoriginalCongressenacting #4 astatuteintendedtocreateaprivateright,orasubsequent $  Congressexplicitlyamendedthestatutetodoso.  Mank, %  supra,at44. &  Lowercourtssearchingfor,andultimatelyfinding,  (H  evidenceofanintenttocreateacauseofactionhaveignored (4! this oftrepeatedwarningandlooked solely tothelegislative ) " historythatwasgeneratedbythe1987amendmentstoTitleVI.   InSeiftheUnitedStatesasamicussuggested,andthecourt   agreed,thattheimplicationofaprivaterightofactionwas   consistentwiththelegislativeintentbecauseCongresswas   awareoftheexistenceofaprivaterightofactionwhenit t  amendedTitleVIin1987.Seif,132F.3dat93334.The ` reasoningfollowsthatbecauseCongresswasawareofthis L interpretationofSection602,anddidnothingtocorrectit, 8t congressionalsilenceonthematterconstitutesacquiescence. $` Thismethodofdeterminingcongressionalintentisflawedfor L  tworeasons. 8   First,aswasexplainedinSectionI,supra,itisnotatall L  clearfromthisCourtsprecedentthatanimpliedprivateright 8t  ofactiondoesexisttoenforcedisparateimpactregulations $`  promulgatedunderSection602.AstheThirdCircuitinSeif L  conceded, Guardiansdidnotexplicitlyaddresswhethera 8 privaterightofactionexistsunderdiscriminatoryeffect $ regulationspromulgatedundersection602.Seif,132F.3d  at929.Hence,giventheextremeuncertaintyastowhethera  righttobringaprivatecauseofactionunderSection602  regulationsevenexists,itisimpossibletoconcludethat  Congresshassomehowendorsedthisright.   Second,theideaofcongressionalacquiescenceis  doctrinallyflawed.AsthisCourtexplainedinCentralBank:  8 Furthermore,ourobservationsontheacquiescence !L doctrineindicateitslimitationsasanexpressionof !8 congressionalintent. Itdoesnotfollow...that "$ Congressfailuretooverturnastatutoryprecedentis # reasonforthisCourttoadheretoit.Itisimpossible $ toassertwithanydegreeofassurancethat % congressionalfailuretoactrepresentsaffirmative & congressionalapprovalofthe[courts]statutory '  interpretation....p(    CentralBank,511U.S.at186(quotinginpart  Pattersonv.    McLeanCreditUnion,491U.S.164,175n.1(1989)).    Thelowercourtssearchforevidenceofcongressional  < intenttocreateaprivaterightofactionunderSection602is  ( fundamentallyflawed.Bylookingonlytocongressionalintent   surroundingthe1987amendmentstoTitleVI,andignoringthe  intentoftheCongressthatenactedSection602asexpressedin  thelanguageofthesection,thelowercourtshaveengagedina  methodofdetermininglegislativeintentthathasbeenexpressly  rejectedbythisCourt.Moreover,thelegislativehistoryculled t  fromthe1987amendmentsdemonstratesonlyanawareness `  thatTitleVIhadbeeninterpretedtoallowprivatecausesof L  action.ThefactthatindividualmembersofCongresswere 8t  awarethatTitleVIhadreceivedthisjudicialglossanddid $`  nothingtocorrectthisinterpretationdoesnotmeanthat L  Congressintendedtocreateaprivatecauseofaction. 8   Helveringv.Hallock,309U.S.106,121(1940)( wewalkon $ quicksandwhenwetrytofindintheabsenceofcorrective  legislationacontrollinglegalprinciple).   Oncethelegislativehistorygeneratedbythe1987 L amendmentsisremovedfromtheequationitbecomesapparent 8 thatthereisnoevidencethatCongressintendedtocreatea $ privatecauseofactionunderSection602.First,nothinginthe  languageorstructureofthatsectionhintsthatCongress  intendedtocreateaprivatecauseofactiontoenforcethe   section.Tothecontrary,thewordsofthestatutemakeplain ! thatfederalagenciesanddepartmentsarechargedwithensuring " thattheirrulesandregulationsareadheredtobytherecipients p# offederalmoneys.Second,thereisnolegislativehistory \$ indicatingthattheCongressthatenactedthesectionintendedto H% createacauseofaction.Oncethelegislativehistory 4&p surroundingtheamendmentstothesectionisproperly  '\ discarded,thereisnothinglefttosupporttheconclusionthat  (H  Congressintendedtocreateaprivatecauseofactionunder (4! Section602. ) "   kD D &    & 4%XX3p& 4%%& 4    CONCLUSIONk); . ' F   D D   X3pX%& 4X3pXXX3p   RespondentsattempttochallengetheAlabamaEnglish  P onlydriverslicenseexaminationrequirementmustberejected  < fortworeasons.First,thisCourtsprecedentestablishesthat  ( TitleVIanditsregulationscanextendnofurtherthanthe   FourteenthAmendment.Asaresult,allegationsthatthestates  driverslicenserequirementhasadiscriminatoryeffectare  insufficienttostateacauseofactionundertheregulations.  Instead,aswiththeFourteenthAmendment,achallengetothe  statelawmustbepredicatedonaclaimofintentional t  discrimination.Second,asidefromthequestionofwhether `  TitleVIiscoextensivewiththeConstitution,thereisno L  evidencethatCongressintendedtocreateaprivaterightof 8t  actiontoenforceTitleVIregulations.Neithertheplain $`  languageofthestatute,northelegislativehistorygeneratedby L  theCongressthatenactedSection602,indicatesthatCongress 8 intendedtocreateaprivatecauseofactiontoenforcethe $ regulations.Instead,thestructureandlanguageofSection602  demonstratethatfederalagencies,notindividuallitigants,are  chargedwithenforcingregulationspromulgatedunderthe  statute.   DATED:November ,2000. $  d "  W XX3pW  W (  D D (! d! 8t X3pX W X3pXXX3pRespectfullysubmitted,W XX3pW  W  8t (  D D ((  D D (  OfCounsel !L MarkT.Gallagher !  PacificLegalFoundation "  10360OldPlacervilleRoad, h#   Suite100 0$l  Sacramento,California95827 $4  Telephone:(916)3622833 %  Facsimile:(916)3622932 & JohnH.Findley !L  2 CounselofRecord !  2 PacificLegalFoundation "  2 10360OldPlacervilleRoad, h#   2   Suite100 0$l!  2 Sacramento,California95827 $4"  2 Telephone:(916)3622833 %#  2 Facsimile:(916)3622932  &$ (  D D (  CounselforAmiciCuriae