Supreme Court Limits Scope of a Main Civil Rights Law The Supreme Court today substantially limited the effectiveness of one of the most important civil rights laws as a weapon against discrimination in the way federal grant money is used. The case before the court was a class-action lawsuit contending that the State of Alabama violated federal law by requiring applicants for drivers' licenses to take the written examination in English. Alabama, which like all states receives federal law enforcement and highway money, is the only state to limit its drivers' license exams to English. Two lower federal courts ruled that the policy had the prohibited effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin. But the Supreme Court said today that private lawsuits were not authorized under the law at issue, Title VI, which itself prohibits only intentional discrimination. The law authorizes federal agencies to issue regulations that bring their own programs into compliance with Title VI, and many regulations go beyond intentional discrimination to also bar the use of federal money in programs with discriminatory effects. The court said today that the "private right of action," the ability of private plaintiffs to go to court to enforce Title VI, extended no further than the law itself and did not apply to the regulations. The decision reflected a major battle on the court, and the hard feelings were evident in the courtroom today. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said "it makes no sense" to differentiate for the purposes of private Title VI lawsuits between intentional discrimination and discriminatory impact. "There is but one private action to enforce Title VI, and we already know that such an action exists," he said. Justice Stevens read portions of his dissent from the bench, a step justices take only rarely to call attention to developments they regard as particularly wrongheaded. He criticized the majority not only for its decision, but also for reaching out to take the case in the first place in the absence of any conflict among the lower federal courts on the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25DISC.html?pagewanted=all