Alexander v. Sandoval
E165740
Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Alexander v. Sandoval canonical | 2 |
| Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1446449 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Alexander v. Sandoval Context triple: [Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, relatedCaseLaw, Alexander v. Sandoval]
-
A.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
B.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
C.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
-
D.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
-
E.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Alexander v. Sandoval Target entity description: Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
A.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
B.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
C.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
-
D.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
-
E.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
civil rights case ⓘ legal case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
civil rights law ⓘ statutory interpretation ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2000-10-31 ⓘ |
| citation |
121 S. Ct. 1511
ⓘ
149 L. Ed. 2d 517 ⓘ 532 U.S. 275 ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedDate | 2001-04-24 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2001-04-24 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 99-1908 ⓘ |
| factualBackground |
Alabama adopted an English-only policy for driver’s license examinations
ⓘ
Plaintiff alleged the English-only policy had a disparate impact on non-English speakers ⓘ |
| holding |
Private individuals may sue only for intentional discrimination under §601 of Title VI
ⓘ
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not create a private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under §602 ⓘ |
| impact |
Limited enforcement of disparate-impact regulations under Title VI to federal agencies
ⓘ
Restricted the ability of private plaintiffs to challenge policies with disparate impact under Title VI ⓘ |
| issue | Whether there is an implied private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI ⓘ |
| joinedByInDissent |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| legalDoctrine |
implied private right of action
ⓘ
statutory interpretation ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
ⓘ
disparate impact ⓘ federal administrative regulations ⓘ private right of action ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Martha Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety
ⓘ
linked to:
Alabama Department of Public Safety
|
| relatedAgency |
United States Department of Justice
ⓘ
United States Department of Transportation ⓘ |
| relatedStatute |
42 U.S.C. §2000d
ⓘ
42 U.S.C. §2000d-1 ⓘ |
| respondent | Martha Sandoval ⓘ |
| result | Reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ⓘ |
| subsequentCitation | often cited in cases limiting implied private rights of action ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2000 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Alexander v. Sandoval Description of subject: Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Alexander v. Sandoval