NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2001

The case involves a Spanish-speaking woman in Alabama who sued the state because it administers driver's tests only in English. But an eventual Supreme Court decision could deal with the broader issue, not the merits of the woman's case, and its effect could live well into the new century.

In the waning days of the Clinton administration, the federal government's top courtroom lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, supported an individual's right to sue under the act during Tuesday's argument.

If the case had been heard a month from now, it is doubtful that the Bush administration would have taken the same position. Bush's nominee for attorney general, former Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., has expressed strong support for states' rights, and any Republican nominee for solicitor general would likely take the same position.

In fact, a Supreme Court ruling that there is no individual right to sue states under the Civil Rights Act would ensure that only federal agencies could enforce its provisions. That possible outcome will not be lost on the groups opposing Ashcroft's nomination during this week's Senate hearings.

In contrast, Waxman told the Supreme Court Tuesday that holding states accountable under the Civil Rights Act is "utterly embedded" in the public mind.

The underlying case that brought Tuesday's argument to the Supreme Court is less sweeping than the principle under review.

Like almost all states, Alabama for a time administered its written driver's test in several languages. From the 1970s to 1991, the state did so in 14 languages, "including Spanish, Korean, Farsi, Cambodian, German, Laotian, Greek, Arabic, French, Japanese, Polish, Thai and Vietnamese," according to court records.

But in July 1990, state voters passed Amendment 509 to the state constitution. The amendment makes English "the official language of the state of Alabama" and tells the Legislature and officials to take "all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced."

Amendment 509 also allows individuals living or doing business in Alabama to file private suits to enforce the use of English.

A score of states have made English their official language, but few, if any, appear to have applied that policy in the way Alabama has.

About a year after the amendment's passage, the state Department of Public Safety adopted a policy of using only English in all parts of the driver's exam. "Interpreters, translation, dictionaries and other interpretive aids were officially forbidden," according to an appeals court opinion in the case.

Supported by several advocates, immigrant Martha Sandoval of Mobile, Ala., filed a class action suit against the policy in federal court in 1996.

Sandoval, a Mexican who moved to Mobile in 1987 and is now a permanent U.S. resident, speaks very little English, court records said. She did take an English class at a Baptist church but had to quit because she worked two jobs: cleaning houses in the morning and working at her family restaurant in the evening.

A federal judge ruled that Sandoval had the right to sue the state under U.S. civil rights law and that the state's policy violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When a federal appeals court affirmed the judge's ruling, state officials asked the Supreme Court for review of whether Congress created a private right under the act to sue state agencies receiving federal grants.

Speaking for the state during Tuesday's argument, Columbus, Ohio, attorney Jeffrey Sutton told the Supreme Court, "States are not run-of-the-mill defendants. ... They are co-equal sovereigns."

There is no "private right of action" – an individual's right to sue – in the Civil Rights Act, Sutton argued. He said the questions the Supreme Court must answer are, "What did Congress mean? What did Congress authorize here?" Sutton contended that "Congress was very explicit when it wanted a private right of action" in other laws, and there was none implied in the Civil Rights Act.

Speaking for Sandoval, Seattle attorney Eric Schnapper said not to rule in favor of a private right of action in the law would mean a "fundamental change in federal-state relations."

Waxman was just as emphatic in supporting that interpretation, saying that Sandoval and others in her position were seeking an injunction to change state behavior, not damages.

"For over 25 years, courts have afforded injunctive relief … against state officials as well as private individuals" under the Civil Rights Act and other laws. Asked by Justice Stephen Breyer whether such an action was "embedded in the public mind," Waxman responded, "I think it is utterly embedded."

In the latter half of the 1990s, the Supreme Court has generally split 5-4 along ideological lines to decide a stream of federalism cases, whenever states' rights were pitted against Washington. There was no indication during Tuesday's argument, however, how the court would split.

A Supreme Court decision is expected within a couple of months.

(No. 99-1908, Director Alexander vs. Sandoval and all others similarly situated)

Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Related Products:
Express your opinion about this to top leaders, Congress and the media – send an Urgent PriorityGram. It's easy and powerful! Click Here.