Judicial review of civil rights regulations
Judicial Review of Civil Rights Regulations: Overview
Scope:
Judicial review examines whether civil rights regulations comply with statutory authority, constitutional provisions (like Equal Protection or Due Process), and administrative law principles.
Standards of Review:
Chevron deference: Courts often defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous civil rights statutes if reasonable.
Strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny: Constitutional challenges to civil rights regulations often involve heightened scrutiny based on the affected classification or fundamental right.
Arbitrary and capricious review: Courts evaluate whether agencies’ regulations have a rational basis and follow proper procedures.
Common Issues:
Whether agencies exceeded their statutory authority.
Whether regulations violate constitutional rights.
Whether agencies complied with procedural requirements.
Balancing interests of protected groups against burdens on others.
1. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Facts:
Duke Power required job applicants to pass intelligence tests and have a high school diploma, which disproportionately excluded African-American applicants.
Issue:
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibit employment practices that have a disparate impact on minorities, even if unintentional?
Explanation:
The Supreme Court held that employment practices must be “related to job performance” and cannot unjustifiably exclude minorities. This was a landmark case affirming disparate impact theory in civil rights regulation.
Judicial Review Aspect:
The Court established that courts must examine the effects of regulations/practices, not just the intent, shaping judicial scrutiny of civil rights regulations enforcing equal employment.
2. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Facts:
Though not a civil rights case per se, this case is fundamental in administrative law and affects judicial review of civil rights regulations.
Issue:
To what extent should courts defer to agencies interpreting ambiguous civil rights statutes?
Explanation:
The Court adopted a two-step test for deference to agency interpretations, which courts often apply to civil rights regulations (e.g., EEOC rules).
Judicial Review Aspect:
Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) receive Chevron deference if their civil rights regulations are reasonable interpretations of the statute.
3. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
Facts:
Two African-American applicants challenged a police department’s written exam that disproportionately excluded minorities.
Issue:
Does a law violate the Equal Protection Clause solely based on a disproportionate racial impact?
Explanation:
The Court held that disparate impact alone is insufficient for an Equal Protection violation; there must be proof of discriminatory intent.
Judicial Review Aspect:
This set limits on constitutional challenges to civil rights regulations and clarified that courts require intent evidence in constitutional review, even if disparate impact claims can proceed under statutes like Title VII.
4. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
Facts:
The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) excluded women from admission.
Issue:
Does excluding women from a state-funded school violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Explanation:
The Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny for sex discrimination and held VMI’s male-only admissions unconstitutional.
Judicial Review Aspect:
This case illustrates how courts apply strict or intermediate scrutiny when reviewing civil rights regulations and policies that involve gender discrimination, often striking down discriminatory rules unless they serve an important governmental interest.
5. PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)
Facts:
A professional golfer with a disability requested accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to use a golf cart during tournaments.
Issue:
Does the ADA require professional sports organizations to provide accommodations that alter the nature of the competition?
Explanation:
The Court ruled that the ADA requires reasonable accommodations unless it fundamentally alters the activity.
Judicial Review Aspect:
Courts must balance anti-discrimination objectives with legitimate business or activity interests, reviewing agency regulations and accommodations for reasonableness.
6. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Facts:
New Haven discarded firefighter promotion exam results because no African-Americans scored high enough, fearing disparate impact lawsuits.
Issue:
Did the city violate Title VII by discarding the results without a strong basis in evidence of discrimination?
Explanation:
The Court ruled that employers must have a “strong basis in evidence” to take race-conscious actions and avoid discrimination claims.
Judicial Review Aspect:
This case clarifies judicial review of civil rights policies balancing avoiding disparate impact against prohibiting racial discrimination.
7. Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)
Facts:
Employees claimed termination based on sexual orientation or gender identity violated Title VII.
Issue:
Does Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination include sexual orientation and gender identity?
Explanation:
The Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.
Judicial Review Aspect:
This expanded interpretation of civil rights laws shows courts actively reviewing agency and employer compliance with evolving civil rights protections.
Summary
Judicial review of civil rights regulations involves statutory interpretation, constitutional scrutiny, and balancing interests.
Courts often defer to agencies under Chevron but still ensure regulations comply with statutory and constitutional mandates.
Disparate impact and discriminatory intent are key concepts shaping judicial review.
Courts apply different levels of scrutiny depending on the classification involved (race, sex, disability).
Recent cases continue to expand protections under civil rights statutes, demonstrating the evolving nature of judicial review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments