Citation network
Alexander Vs. Sandoval
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 24, 2001
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
S. 275 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety, Et Al. V. SandovalSearch
-
See, e. g., Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
prohibits only intentional discrimination. See, e. g., Alexander v. ChoateSearch
-
Syllabus tionally discriminated against the petitioner, see 441 U. S., at 680. In Guardians Assn. v. CivilSearch
-
does not include a private right to enforce these regulations. See Central Bank of Denver, N A. V. FirstSearch
-
law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress. Touche Ross & CO. V. RedingtonSearch
-
This Court will not revert to the understanding of private causes of action, represented by J. I. Case CO. V. BorakSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 426 , 433, that held sway when Title VI was enacted. That understanding was abandoned in Cort V. AshSearch
-
Nor does the Court agree with the Government's contention that cases interpreting statutes enacted prior to Cort V. AshSearch
-
Congress had formed in light of the contemporary legal context. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. CurranSearch
-
and Thompson V. ThompsonSearch
-
See, e. g., Karahalios v. FederalSearch
-
District Court agreed. It enjoined the policy and ordered the Department to accommodate non-English speakers. Sandoval v. HaganSearch
-
Supp. 2d 1234 (1998). Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed. Sandoval v. HaganSearch
-
of Title VI and obtain both injunctive relief and damages. In Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
a)(2). We recognized in Franklin v. GwinnettSearch
-
prohibits only intentional discrimination. In Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. BakkeSearch
-
see also id., at 325, 328, 352 (opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.). In Guardians Assn. v. CivilSearch
-
id., at 642 (STEVENS, J., joined by Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting). What we said in Alexander v. ChoateSearch
-
point, it is puzzling to see JUSTICE STEVENS go out of his way to disparage the decisions in Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. BakkeSearch
-
U. S. 265 (1978), and Guardians Assn. V. CivilSearch
-
in creating the latter, see ibid. Nor does JUSTICE STEVENS'S reliance on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. V. NaturalSearch
-
Chevron in light of agency regulations that were already in force when our decisions were issued, Lechmere, Inc. V. NLRBSearch
-
Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. PrimarySearch
-
see also Sullivan V. EverhartSearch
-
id., at 643-645 (STEVENS, J., joined by Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting), and dictum in Alexander v. ChoateSearch
-
forbids only intentional discrimination, see, e. g., Guardians Assn. v. CivilSearch
-
in Bakke. Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
if valid and reasonable, authoritatively construe the statute itself, see NationsBank of N. c., N. A. v. VariableSearch
-
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
just described, as respondents conceded at oral argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. See National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. SmithSearch
-
School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. ArlineSearch
-
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which the Court assumed included some such impacts). Our decision in Lau v. NicholsSearch
-
to address, under compulsion of JUSTICE STEVENS'S new principle that silence implies agreement. 286 N. A. v. FirstSearch
-
displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSearch
-
U. S. 11 , 15 (1979). Statutory intent on this latter point is determinative. See, e. g., Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. SandbergSearch
-
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. ThompsonSearch
-
that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute. See, e. g., Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. RussellSearch
-
Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSearch
-
Touche Ross & Co. v. RedingtonSearch
-
Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSearch
-
sway 40 years ago when Title VI was enacted. That understanding is captured by the Court's statement in J. 1. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial