dictionary

Reporter's notebook

Attorneys debate implied right to sue before U.S. Supreme Court

CNN Interactive correspondent Raju Chebium attended U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Alexander v. Sandoval. The lawsuit was 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. The court accepted the case 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?

CNN.com: Which issues did the justices seem to be the most interested?

Raju Chebium: They seemed to be more interested in whether there was "an implied cause of action" for private individuals to file lawsuits against state agencies receiving federal dollars, and whether prior court decisions have give people this implied right to sue.

CNN.com: What were the strongest arguments for each side?

IN-DEPTH • Supreme Court News • Court Calendar • Case Index • Justice Profiles • 1999 - 2000 Court Decisions • Supreme Court Home Page  MESSAGE BOARD English only?  COURT REPORT with Charles Bierbauer Lively coverage of the Supreme Court and top public policy issues in the news COLUMN ARCHIVE

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:

Chebium: The strongest argument for Jeffrey Sutton, whose representing Alabama in this case, is that there is no implied cause of action and the federal law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not specifically come out and say that people can sue state agencies.

On the Sandoval side, they pointed to a long list of cases holding that Congress does not have to put in this explicit right for people to sue in the text of the law and that people have the implied right. The government, the Solicitor General Seth Waxman, made a pretty forceful argument that for over 25 years courts in this country have ruled consistently that private individuals have an implied right to sue state agencies. He also said that if the court were to come back now and say private people like Sandoval cannot sue state agencies that would hamper the efforts of people who are trying to enforce Medicare and Medicaid legislation and other sweeping laws.

CNN.com: Did the justices discuss the constitutionality of English-only tests?

Chebium No, not at all.

CNN.com: Final thoughts you took away from the hearing?

Chebium: Although the issue in this case is pretty narrow, it has a broader constitutional question namely that of federalism. That's what Sutton was trying to mention in response to a question by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The justice asked, 'Do you think that the federal regulations of federal agencies are even right in thinking there's a violation by Alabama of the Civil Rights Act?' His answer was 'we take issue with even the federal regulations in this question.'

Essentially, what he was advocating was nobody should be able to sue. But, if somebody should have the right to sue, it should be the federal government or federal agencies that are giving out the money to the states and not individuals who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this federal money that trickles down through the states. A pretty convoluted argument, but that's essentially what it was.

In court papers, the state of Alabama has mentioned that if such an implied right to sue does indeed exist then people could file lawsuits all over the place challenging myriad state and federal laws that require some level of proficiency in English.

They did not mention this today, but keep in mind each side has only 30 minutes, so you can't really get into everything. Often they're talking, finish half a sentence and before you can complete a thought another justice fires another question.

I would say that in this particular case when compared to some other high profile cases, the number of questions that were fired at the attorneys on either side was not quite as high. The attorneys did have the chance to finish their sentences in this case.

CNN.com: When the justices issue their ruling they will answer the question: "Yes, she has the right to sue" or "No, she does not have the right to sue?"

Chebium: Correct.

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.