No. 99-1908

In the
Supreme Court of the United States
	 ® 
JAMES ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as the Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, and the ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Petitioners,
v.
MARTHA SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent.
	 ® 
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
	 ® 
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION AND CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
	 ® 

Of Counsel
Mark T. Gallagher
	Pacific Legal Foundation
	10360 Old Placerville Road,
		Suite 100
	Sacramento, California 95827
	Telephone:  (916) 362-2833
	Facsimile:  (916) 362-2932

John H. Findley
	Counsel of Record
	Pacific Legal Foundation
	10360 Old Placerville Road,
		Suite 100
	Sacramento, California 95827
	Telephone:  (916) 362-2833
	Facsimile:  (916) 362-2932

Counsel for Amici Curiae

QUESTION PRESENTED
	Whether Congress intended to create a private cause of action in federal court against a state agency that receives federal grant funds, thereby allowing a private individual to enforce disparate effect regulations promulgated by federal agencies under Section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and bypass the federal agency review and enforcement process established by Congress.
	TABLE OF CONTENTS
	Page
QUESTION PRESENTED	i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES	iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE	1
INTRODUCTION	2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE	4
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 	6
ARGUMENT	7
I.	THIS COURT HAS NOT YET DECIDED WHETHER THERE IS AN IMPLIED CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE AGENCY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 602 OF TITLE VI	7
II.	IN ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO CREATE A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION, LOWER COURTS HAVE MISAPPLIED THIS COURT’S PRECEDENT	11
CONCLUSION	16

	TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
	Page
	Cases
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985)	7-8
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)	2
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)	2
Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917)	12
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994)	13, 15
Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif, 132 F.3d 925 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. granted, sub nom. 524 U.S. 915, vacated as moot, 524 U.S. 974 (1998)	3, 5, 8-9, 11, 14
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)	2
Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980)	13-14
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975)	11
Cureton v. NCAA, 198 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 1999)	1
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)	2
Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, 463 U.S. 582 (1983)	7
Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106 (1940)	15
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,                                491 U.S. 164 (1989) 	15
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158 (1989)	13
Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S. Ct. 1044 (2000)	2
Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484                                (11th Cir. 1999)	2-6, 9, 11, 15
Seif v. Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, 524 U.S. 974 (1998)	10
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)	2
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks,                                  509 U.S. 502 (1993)	2
Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better             Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)	2
Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992)	11
Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v.                   Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979)	11
United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)	2
United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992)	8
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,                       340 U.S. 36 (1950)	10
United States v. Philadelphia National Bank,         374 U.S. 321 (1963)	14
United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.,           489 U.S. 235 (1989)	12
Valeria G. v. Wilson, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1007                  (N.D. Cal. 1998)	1-2
	Constitutions
Ala. Const. amend. 509	4

	Statutes
42 U.S.C. § 2000d	7
	§ 2000d-1	12-13
	Regulations
28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)	4
49 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(2)	4
	Rules
United States Supreme Court Rule 10(c)	6
	Rule 37.3	1
	Rule 37.6	1
	Miscellaneous
Badford C. Mank, Is There a Private Cause of Action Under EPA’s Title VI Regulations?:  The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs, 24 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1  (1999)	9, 14
Jimmy White, Comment:  Environmental Justice:  Is Disparate Impact Enough?, 50 Mercer L. Rev. 1155 (1999)	9

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
	Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and the Center for Equal Opportunity respectfully submit this brief amici curiae in support of Petitioner.  Written consent for amici participation in this case has been obtained from all parties and has been lodged with the Clerk of the Court.
	Pacific Legal Foundation is the largest and most experienced nonprofit public interest law foundation of its kind in America.  Founded in 1973, PLF provides a voice in the courts for mainstream Americans who believe in limited government, private property rights, individual freedom, and free enterprise.  PLF litigates nationwide in state and federal courts with the support of thousands of citizens from coast to coast.  PLF is headquartered in Sacramento, California, and has offices in Miami, Florida; Honolulu, Hawaii; Bellevue, Washington; and a liaison office in Anchorage, Alaska.
	Attorneys for Pacific Legal Foundation have previously litigated questions regarding the scope and meaning of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  For example, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys represented the California State Board of Education in a case alleging that California’s Proposition 227, an initiative replacing bilingual education with English emersion, violated federal regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 602 of Title VI.  Valeria G. v. Wilson, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (N.D. Cal. 1998).  Pacific Legal Foundation also participated as amicus in Cureton v. NCAA, 198 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 1999), a case alleging that minimum standardized testing scores had a disparate impact on African-American student athletes in violation of regulations promulgated under Section 602 of the Civil Rights Act.
	PLF has a long history of advocacy before this Court and has participated in numerous cases involving the interpretation of federal laws.  For example, PLF was amicus curiae in Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997); Douglas County v. Babbitt, 516 U.S. 1042 (1996); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995); and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
	The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) is an unincorporated project of the Equal Opportunity Foundation, Inc., a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation.  CEO’s main purpose is to study issues concerning race, ethnicity, and language.  CEO has participated actively in cases involving the question of whether regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 602 of Title VI create a private right of action.  Valeria G. v. Wilson, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1007.  CEO has previously litigated civil rights cases before this Court.  For example, CEO was amicus curiae in Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S. Ct. 1044 (2000); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); and St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
	PLF and CEO believe their public policy perspective and litigation experience will provide an additional viewpoint on the legal issues presented.
INTRODUCTION
	This case reaffirms Chief Justice Marshall’s observation from nearly two centuries ago that “[w]here the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived.”  United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. 358, 386 (1805).  The court below was confronted with the question of whether there is “an implied private cause of action to enforce agency regulations promulgated under Section 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1.”  Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484, 502 (11th Cir. 1999).  In answering this question the court looked to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif, 132 F.3d 925 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. granted, sub nom. 524 U.S. 915, vacated as moot, 524 U.S. 974 (1998).  
	The Seif court had concluded that a private right of action to enforce agency regulations promulgated under Section 602 of Title VI does exist.  This decision was based, in no small part, on what the Third Circuit perceived to be Congress’ intent to create such a private cause of action.  In reaching this decision, however, the Third Circuit misapplied this Court’s teachings on the proper method of determining legislative intent.  Specifically, the Third Circuit looked only to the congressional history surrounding the 1987 amendments to Title VI and did not, as this Court’s precedents require, look to the intent of the Congress that initially passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The Third Circuit’s error has been compounded by the decision below, which does not make an independent review of congressional intent but instead relies upon the Third Circuit’s reasoning.    
	As both the court below and the Third Circuit recognized, this Court has never squarely addressed the issue of whether Title VI creates a private cause of action to enforce disparate impact regulations.  Sandoval, 197 F.3d at 504 (noting that this Court “has yet to squarely answer” this question); Seif, 132 F.3d at 932 (“applicable Supreme Court precedent is not dispositive”).  In the absence of guiding precedent from this Court, lower courts have and will continue to struggle with the question of whether an implied private cause of action exists to enforce Section 602 regulations.  In this pursuit courts will (and have) seize everything from which aid can be derived, including the erroneous decision issued by the Third, and now the Eleventh, Circuit Courts of Appeals.  This Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari in order to decide this important federal question. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
	The people of the State of Alabama amended their constitution to make English the official language of the state.  Ala. Const. amend. 509.  Pursuant to this amendment, the Alabama Department of Public Safety adopted a policy requiring t