dictionary

Immigrant seeks right to sue Alabama over English-only driver's test

In this story: The Spending Clause Alabama's rebuttal Alabama's view of the impact of a pro-Sandoval ruling Sandoval lawyers say impact will be small RELATED STORIES, SITES

By Raju Chebium
CNN.com Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by a Mexican immigrant who alleges Alabama violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by giving driver's license tests in only one language: English.

FULL TEXT • 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Sandoval v. Hagan • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USC 2000d • Alabama Constitution Amendment 509 English only statute • Brief in support of Respondents • Amicus Curiae brief of U.S. English (FindLaw) Documents in PDF format require Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing.  MESSAGE BOARD English only?

IN-DEPTH • Justice Profiles • Supreme Court Home Page

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

Martha Sandoval, who came to the United States in 1987 and is a permanent resident, contends that English-language tests discriminate against her based on her "national origin," though the Civil Rights Act expressly forbids such discrimination by state agencies receiving federal funds.

Legal briefs filed by both sides show that the court accepted Alexander v. Sandoval to answer a narrow question: Does the Civil Rights Act give individuals the right to sue state agencies on grounds that the states are violating the law?

The nation's highest court is not being asked to rule on the constitutional merits of English-language tests and laws requiring some level of English proficiency.

However, Alabama argued that a ruling in Sandoval's favor could open the door to broad challenges to numerous state and federal laws that require people to know English, a contention Sandoval's side dismisses as heated rhetoric.

From the 1970s to 1991, Alabama offered the driver's license test in 14 languages, according to court documents.

In 1990, Alabama amended its constitution to declare English the official language. The amendment required government officials to take steps to ensure that the "role of English as the common language ... is preserved and enhanced," according to Alabama's written arguments.

A year later, the Alabama Department of Public Safety began offering the tests only in English to comply with the constitutional amendment, court papers show.

In 1999, the state once again began offering the test in foreign languages under orders from lower federal courts, while awaiting the Supreme Court's decision, Sandoval's lawyer, Richard Cohen, said in an interview.

The Spending Clause

The constitutional issue at the heart of the case is the so-called Spending Clause principle derived from Article I. That clause holds that the federal government may impose conditions on states that receive federal money.

The U.S. Solicitor General's office, the Supreme Court litigation arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, said in its filings that states receiving money from the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

Further, the Civil Rights Act implicitly gives private individuals the rights to sue states engaging in discrimination to ensure that states comply with the law, Sandoval's side argued.

To support its position, Sandoval's side points to several prior high court rulings in cases involving a variety of federal laws, saying the court has clearly upheld people's right to sue state agencies even if that right is not spelled out in black in white in the language of the laws.

Therefore, Sandoval is within her rights to sue the Alabama Department of Public Safety and its director, James Alexander, Sandoval's side argued.

Sandoval, represented by the civil-rights group Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, won at the federal trial-court and appellate-court levels, prompting Alabama to turn to the Supreme Court.

President John F. Kennedy, who championed the measure, urged Congress to pass the law to ensure "simple justice" for all, regardless of the color of a person's skin.

"Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all race contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination," the solicitor general's brief quoted Kennedy as saying.

"Congress anticipated that federal agencies would play a leading role in defining the prohibition against discrimination to which grant recipients would be required to adhere in order to obtain federal assistance," the solicitor general argued.

Alabama's decision to administer the test only in English had the "unlawful effect of discriminating against individuals based on national origin," the government wrote.

Alabama's rebuttal

Alabama argued that the Civil Rights Act must contain explicit provisions giving private individuals the right to sue. Barring such clear provisions, Sandoval cannot sue the state, Alabama argued.

Invoking the federalism doctrine, derived from the 11th Amendment, Alabama argued that states are sovereign entities. Under that doctrine, states normally have to consent to be sued by its citizens, legal scholars have said.

If Congress intended for private citizens to sue states to enforce federal law, lawmakers must have made that right "unmistakably" clear in the text of the law, the state claims.

It would be "more acceptable" if the federal government itself initiates such legal action if it determines that Alabama violated the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against state residents, said Jeffrey Sutton, an Ohio lawyer who will argue on Alabama's behalf on Tuesday.

Joining Alabama's side are a number of organizations that champion state's rights and the establishment of English as the common language of this country.

Alabama's view of the impact of a pro-Sandoval ruling

A ruling in Sandoval's favor would "unleash a rash of private action," placing enormous financial and legal implications on states, which might have to provide myriad services in multiple languages, Sutton said in an interview.

Cohen, the chief lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center, refuted that claim, saying many government documents are already printed in foreign languages.

"I don't think a ruling in our favor means that suddenly every government form is going to have to be printed in every foreign language. That will not happen because in most every context, people can get the government forms translated. People can hand it to their friends or relatives and say, 'Read this for me,'" Cohen said.

A Sandoval victory also presents a "palpable" risk of a flood of lawsuits seeking to overturn all laws requiring knowledge of English on grounds that they discriminate against those from non-English-speaking nations, Sutton warned.

Alabama's attorneys argue that the English-only tests do not discriminate against non-English speakers; it only satisfies the state constitutional mandate to make English the official language.

"Individuals who live in Alabama have access to a host of private and public initiatives designed to teach proficiency in the English language. First and foremost, the State guarantees a free public education to all of its residents, whether they were born in this country or not, whether English is their first language or not," Alabama's brief said.

"This primary and secondary education gives most residents of Alabama an equal opportunity to become proficient in English long before eligibility for a driving-license examination becomes a relevant issue in their lives," the brief said.

Moreover, all states and numerous federal laws require English proficiency, Alabama argued.

For instance, the state said, the Immigration and Naturalization Service requires applicants for naturalized citizenship to know some English. The Supreme Court itself requires legal documents to be in English.

And the federal Transportation Department, which gives millions of dollars annually to Alabama, requires applicants for commercial driver's licenses to have some knowledge of English to preserve public safety so drivers can understand road signs and the like, court papers show.

"One does not discriminate on the basis of national origin by setting up modest English proficiency requirements," Sutton said. "We have a common language and there is some efficiency to requiring people to conduct official business in that common language. It is beneficial ... for an immigrant to learn English to live in this country."

Sandoval lawyers say impact will be small

Cohen accused Alabama's lawyers of overstating the impact of a pro-Sandoval ruling. He said the only issue before the high court is who can sue, not whether English-language laws are constitutional.

"The other side said (there are) 799 federal and state laws mandating the use of English. ... We would say those kinds of laws are not at issue here," Cohen said. "I think that English is the official language of this country in a practical sense already. And I think that most people who come here both learn English and want to learn English."

Cohen said Sandoval would not have sued if Alabama officials had accommodated her in some other way - by providing a translated test or by allowing her to use a Spanish dictionary while taking it.

Sandoval, who cleans homes and works at a restaurant, speaks rudimentary English, not enough to pass the tests, which require a 10th-grade level of familiarity with the language, court papers show.

Foreign-language speakers are discriminated against because Alabama makes accommodations for other types applicants who have trouble taking the test, Cohen argued.

For instance, the state arranges for the test to be read out loud for illiterate applicants, Sandoval's lawyers said in court papers. Additionally, drivers who speak very little English who have driver's licenses from any of the other 49 states can get an Alabama license by simply proving Alabama residency, Cohen said.

"One cannot exercise self help. Alabama would not provide an interpreter for you and Alabama forbids you from bringing a ... dictionary," he said. "The ... amendment goes into effect and it's more than a year later and the Department of Public Safety suddenly decides it has to change its practice."

Saying he would not "discount" the notion that the English-only policy is racist, Cohen added: "Maybe they did not want to give these tests anymore for whatever the reason, and used this amendment as an excuse."

High court passes chance to rule on English-only law
March 3, 1997
Oakland school board amends Ebonics policy
January 16, 1997

Supreme Court of the United States
Southern Poverty Law Center
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research
ACLU Briefing paper on English-only laws
Alabama Attorney General home page
Alabama Department of Public Safety
Office of the Solicitor General home page

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.