 |
Home - Yahoo! - My Yahoo! - News Alerts - Help |
|
|
weather.com travel weather |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Politics News - updated 3:42 PM ET Jan 27 |
|
|
Reuters | AP | Elections | ABCNEWS.com |  Videos
|
||
By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a case arising from Alabama's policy to give its driver's license exam only in English, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) considered on Tuesday whether to narrow the reach of a key federal anti-discrimination law. The high court questioned whether private individuals can sue state agencies that receive federal financial assistance for injunctive relief under a landmark civil rights law that bans discrimination based on race, color or national origin. The case concerned the ability of private individuals to bring such a lawsuit and did not address the validity of the state's English-only policy, a requirement that has become increasingly popular in a number of states. Martha Sandoval, a Mexican immigrant living in Mobile, sued Alabama's Department of Public Safety in 1996 on behalf of herself and others. Her lawsuit claimed the English-only policy violated a 1964 federal civil rights law. Both a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court rejected the state's arguments that the law does not allow such lawsuits by private citizens. Alabama had offered its test in as many as 14 foreign languages until 1991. The Department of Public Safety then changed its policy about a year after Alabama voters added an English-only amendment to the state constitution. Jeffrey Sutton, a lawyer representing the state agency before the Supreme Court, said Congress in adopting the law failed to clearly give private individuals the right to bring such lawsuits. ``When you alter the federal-state balance, Congress has to be unmistakable in what it's doing,'' he argued. Sutton, who acknowledged that such lawsuits may be brought by government agencies, said Congress never was clear concerning its intent. ``What did Congress mean? What did Congress authorize here?'' Justice Questions Sweeping State Argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) expressed concern about the ''sweeping'' nature of his argument, saying it would apply to all laws that may be silent about a private right to sue. Eric Schnapper, representing Sandoval, said Sutton's position proposed ``substantial changes in the law.'' He argued that allowing private lawsuits had become ``an established part of the fabric of law.'' Solicitor General Seth Waxman of the Justice Department (news - web sites) agreed that it has been the long-standing view of the executive branch in both Democratic and Republican administrations, of the Congress and of the judiciary that such private suits may be brought. Asked by Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) how many such lawsuits have been brought in the past 35 years, Waxman did not cite specific numbers, but said it had become ``utterly embedded'' in the law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) seemed skeptical. ``This is an area where there is no precise authority, one way or another.'' Taking away the ability of private individuals to sue would have ``very broad ramifications'' extending beyond civil rights cases, Waxman said. The Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the case by the end of June.
| |||||||||||
| Search News |
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc.,
and Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Questions or Comments Privacy Policy - Terms of Service |