EJ litigants must sue under Title VI regulations, not the statute itself

Evidence

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a violation of the statute requires proof of discriminatory intent, whereas proof of discriminatory effect suffices to establish liability when the suit is brought to enforce regulations issued pursuant to the statute, rather than the statute itself. See Guardians Association v. Civil Service Common of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 591–93 (1983). — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 1007 (#expands, via linked claim)

A recent Supreme Court action in the Chester case has led some to question the continuing viability of lawsuits under Title VI regulations, as the Court appeared poised to abolish citizens’ rights to sue under such regulations. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 579 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Shortly thereafter, in January 1998, CRCQL received more good news. A federal court ruled that residents have a “private right of action,” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, to challenge the proliferation of waste treatment facilities on grounds of racial discrimination. Chester residents had sued the Pennsylvania DEP, claiming that its pattern of granting permits in Delaware County is racially discriminatory. As evidence, they pointed to the clustering of waste facility permits in Chester’s predominantly African American community. The residents claimed that the DEP violated Title VI regulations, implemented to enforce Title VI, that mandate that any jurisdiction receiving federal EPA money “shall not use criteria or methods of administering its program which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or sex.” The State, however, appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. In August 1998, the Supreme Court declared the case moot and vacated the favorable federal court ruling. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 285 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Chester jeopardized private citizens’ right to sue under Title VI regulations; Broad agency-wide coverage makes Title VI reach most state regulators; Title VI regulations allow discrimination suits on discriminatory effect while the statute demands intent — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 1007 (+2 more)

Related

• The Supreme Court nearly abolished private suits under Title VI regulations (similarity 0.89)
• The Supreme Court vacated a favorable Title VI environmental-racism ruling on mootness (similarity 0.88)
• Title VI regulations allow discrimination suits on discriminatory effect while the statute demands intent (similarity 0.88)
• Chester jeopardized private citizens’ right to sue under Title VI regulations (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Title VI regulations allow discrimination suits on discriminatory effect while the statute demands intent #expands (0.90) — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 1007
• The Supreme Court nearly abolished private suits under Title VI regulations #corroborates (0.75) — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 579
• The Supreme Court vacated a favorable Title VI environmental-racism ruling on mootness #exemplifies (0.72) — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 285