Linda Greenhouse does her characteristically nice job discussing the Supreme Court and Civil Rights Act Title IX jurisprudence: the body of decisions beginning with Cannon v. U. Chicago (1979) which allow women student athletes to bring suit for gender discrimination against their schools. The Court there asked if Title IX's broad language implied a Congressional intent to allow a private right of action for failure to provide equal opportunities for women to participate in school athletics. Justice Stevens begins with four factors to glean intent where Congress is silent:
Greenhouse points out that in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) Justice Antonin Scalia announced the end of an expansionary era: rejecting a claimed private right of action implied in Title VI [barring race and national origina discrimination in any federally-aided program]. Like title IX it makes no express provision for a private right of action but authorizes "rules, regulations, and orders of general applicability".
Justice Scalia, with his characteristically snide rhetoric wrote “Having sworn off the habit of venturing beyond Congress’s intent, we will not accept respondents’ invitation to have one last drink.”
Justice John Paul Stevens was appalled at the assault calling it “unfounded by our precedent and hostile to decades of settled expectations.”
The Court at the Olympics - NYTimes.com:
by Linda Greenhouse
(1) whether the statute was enacted for the benefit of a special class of which the plaintiff is a member, (2) whether there is any indication of legislative intent to create a private remedy, (3) whether implication of such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme, and (4) whether implying a federal remedy is inappropriate because the subject matter involves an area basically of concern to the States.The Court found that the similarity to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which did allow a private action) was key. Title IX provides at 20 U.S.C. 1681:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . . .
Greenhouse points out that in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) Justice Antonin Scalia announced the end of an expansionary era: rejecting a claimed private right of action implied in Title VI [barring race and national origina discrimination in any federally-aided program]. Like title IX it makes no express provision for a private right of action but authorizes "rules, regulations, and orders of general applicability".
Justice Scalia, with his characteristically snide rhetoric wrote “Having sworn off the habit of venturing beyond Congress’s intent, we will not accept respondents’ invitation to have one last drink.”
Justice John Paul Stevens was appalled at the assault calling it “unfounded by our precedent and hostile to decades of settled expectations.”
The Court at the Olympics - NYTimes.com:
by Linda Greenhouse
Many people are celebrating the achievements of American women at the London Olympics, where women exceed men in the number of athletes on the United States team and have walked away with an impressive number of gold medals. And many have noted the connection between the women’s historic success and the 40th anniversary of Title IX, which President Richard M. Nixon signed into law on June 23, 1972.
There’s another player that deserves some recognition at this celebratory moment: the Supreme Court. By endorsing a broad interpretation of Title IX at crucial moments over the years, the court has played a critical role in making that law the powerful force for women’s advancement (most famously in athletics, but not limited to the playing field) that it is today....'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment