Talk:Alexander v. Sandoval

Untitled

I don't know what the references to Garrett and other congressional power of enforcement cases are doing in this article. Sandoval is a case about – and solely about – whether a private right of action may be implied under a particular federal statute. It's not about congressional power to create such a right of action. Thus the erasure. Hydriotaphia 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, no one is "stalking" you. I have been watching these pages since I started contributing to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 04:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the reference to Garrett. Please see Talk:Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett for an explanation. Hydriotaphia 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wrongly accused you of stalking. Every time I do anything, you show up and complain, and two of the four articles where this happened exist only because I created them. If this is coincidental, sorry.Jimmuldrow 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I "show up and complain" not because it is you who are editing, but rather because of the substance of your edits. If your edits were different, I would not complain. The most productive thing, I think, would be to discuss the substance of your edits. If you're willing to do this in a straightforward, good-faith manner, I will be here. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're not really following me around, then the coincidences should stop coinciding on so many different articles.Jimmuldrow 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say, Jim, is that if you look at my contributions stretching back a long time, and look at the history of articles such as, but not limited to, City of Boerne v. Flores ([1]) and Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, you will see that I actually created some of the articles you accuse me of following you around on. I have been involved in editing these cases and related topics since I joined Wikipedia as an editor. I'm truly and sincerely sorry that you feel I'm stalking you. I wish I could convince you otherwise. I have nothing against you personally. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles you created are other than this one and Kimel.Jimmuldrow 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reason the most relevant details were mentioned up front before was to clarify a very confused case.Jimmuldrow 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible way of proceeding. I do think, however, that your discussion of the relevant background legal principles was too intermixed with a discussion of the majority opinion itself. As (I think) you are suggesting, this page definitely needs more work. Perhaps the best way of improving it would be to try, as much as possible, to discuss the governing legal principles before discussing the way in which those principles were applied in this particular case. For what I think is a good attempt at doing just that, see Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the governing legal principles. What's the principal for defining the holding of a case, for example? Whether there should have been a disagreement (5-4) over something as basic as that, one did exist. If you can find good information on that, a governing legal principles section could be added up front. I still think an overview is needed, although I'll address the concerns you mentioned for that with regard to describing both points of view for Cannon and Scalia's reservations about how to define title VI.Jimmuldrow 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit was a mistake. I meant to do this. I therefore have replaced what I had accidentally eliminated. I apologize. What was eliminated was POV because it assumed exactly what was at issue between the majority and the dissent: whether Cannon was truly a precedent which supported a disparate-impact interpretation of Title VI. Hydriotaphia 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. I really like your recent edits and I hope you approve of mine, too. I was thinking that perhaps it might be good to remove the following paragraph, which seems duplicative of stuff in the "overview" section, and put some of it in what is now footnote 12. Here's the paragraph in question:

The majority cited Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission as precedents for his contention that only intentional discrimination is allowed as a private cause of action under § 601. It added that "we must assume for purposes of deciding this case that regulations promulgated under § 602 of Title VI may validly proscribe activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups, even though such activities are permissible under § 601. Though no opinion of this Court has held that, five Justices in Guardians voiced that view of the law at least as alternative grounds for their decisions." The Sandoval majority's conclusion was that "These statements are in considerable tension with the rule of Bakke and Guardians that § 601 forbids only intentional discrimination, see, e.g., Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City, supra, at 612—613 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment), but petitioners have not challenged the regulations here. We therefore assume for the purposes of deciding this case that the DOJ and DOT regulations proscribing activities that have a disparate impact on the basis of race are valid." As with Cannon, the majority said that only the holding of the Guardians case should be considered, and that the fact that five justices for the Guardians decision agreed with the disparate impact argument should not be considered.

What do you think? Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds fine to me, since what you mention is murky.Jimmuldrow 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for your recent clarification of the issue involving the footnote in Cannon. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've integrated the "overview" section with the majority and dissent sections. I've preserved as much as I could. Hope it's acceptable. Hydriotaphia 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a basic overview would benefit this case more than most. A few redundancies of yours might be corrected as well.Jimmuldrow 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, get rid of the redundancies! Also, what do you mean by "basic overview"? I guess I just don't understand what the purpose of such a section would be. If its purpose would be to discuss the applicable law, it seems to me there's already a section devoted to that. Can you explain what you mean? Thanks, Hydriotaphia 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to bury or obscure the more important details.Jimmuldrow 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying not to. If you think I am, this is the best place to discuss it. Hydriotaphia 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only saying that, given Scalia's bold and sometimes colorful prose, often alternating with confusing details, I think the most important and clear cut details on both sides should be made as simply as possible in an overview.Jimmuldrow 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see – a kind of summary of the main points of contention between the majority and the dissent? That seems to me a very good idea. (Though I do think the previous overview section didn't serve such a purpose.) Needless to say, you're free to go ahead and try your hand at it. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 06:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, another thing we could do is discuss Cannon in the "law" section of the article. Interpreting what Cannon did and did not hold was so important to Sandoval, after all. Just a suggestion. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just though that briefly mentioning both sides of the most important details in a nutshell would make it more understandable, or that was my intention.Jimmuldrow 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Really good edits, in my opinion. I wonder, though, if putting the overview after the "law" section might not make more sense. Again, something for both of us to ponder. Best, Hydriotaphia 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your law section was a good addition as well. Thanks.Jimmuldrow 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Unfortunately, I still can't find any support for the phrase, "At first the majority said the footnote mentioned by the dissent did not refer to disparate impact, but then interpreted the holding of the case to exclude the disputed footnote." The problem is that the part of the majority opinion which is cited to support the assertion in bold doesn't actually seem to support it. The new footnote says: "As Scalia said, 'The language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position.'" However, the full sentence reads:

"The language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position, as we shall discuss at length below, see infra, at 288–290."

532 U.S. at 282.

When one actually goes to pp. 288-290 of volume 532 of the U.S. Reports, the only discussion of Cannon concerns the important role which the rights-creating language of § 601 played in that opinion. See 532 U.S. at 288 ("It is immediately clear that the 'rights-creating' language so critical to the Court’s analysis in Cannon of § 601, see 441 U.S., at 690, n.13, is completely absent from § 602."); id. at 289 (while discussing how § 602 is phrased as a directive to federal agencies, the majority quotes Cannon, which stated that such phrasing provides little support for an implied private right of action); id. at 290 (referring to a discussion in Cannon about the effect of agency enforcement procedures on the existence of an implied private right of action). Note, however, that none of these citations to Cannon discusses the footnote in Cannon that referred to the plaintiff's disparate-impact theory. It seems clear, therefore, that Scalia, by saying that "[t]he language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position," was saying that the language of Cannon – which placed great emphasis on the "right-creating" and not "agency-directing" language of § 601 – actually cuts against the argument that Sandoval was trying to make. Thus I still think the phrase, "At first the majority said the footnote mentioned by the dissent did not refer to disparate impact," should be eliminated. Am I missing something?

Apart from this, the way the phrase is written ("at first ... but then") implies, in what strikes me as an unintentionally biased way, that the majority was contradicting itself. At the very least the phrasing should be improved to remove that implication. Hydriotaphia 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit longer for a response, but I think that unless I get one it's only justified to remove the phrase to which I objected. Hydriotaphia 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Because this case concerns a statute and its interpretation and no constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment or more specifically the Equal Protection Clause, I believe this case should not be categorized as a Fourteenth Amendment case or an equal protection case. I'm going to go ahead with those changes now. I notice, however, that many of the other implied-private-right-of-action cases (e.g., Cannon and Cort v. Ash) are categorized as "civil procedure cases." Hence I'll add that category to this case. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Overview

Great edits to the overview section, Jim. The way you've contrasted the majority and the dissent in their views of the footnote is terse, accurate, and well written. Hydriotaphia 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Jimmuldrow 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Overview (part 2)

I'm still convinced that the overview section ought to go after "The law" section. The overview section makes reference to things which simply will be unclear to a reader who is unfamiliar with the law. What a private cause of action is, what Cannon was about, etc. – these things, it seems to me, cry out for an explanation. Hydriotaphia 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

History section deletion

I've deleted to History section as it was completely out of date and was mostly plagiarized from the Southern Poverty Law Center's website. This section was likely written prior to the Supreme Court's decision, after judgement for the Plaintiff (Sandoval) in the trial court and in the 11th district court. However, the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the lower court rulings. 209.20.29.248 (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)