In a lawsuit over the siting of a Seattle area transit line, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Department of Transportation environmental justice regulation cannot be enforced in court under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
The Civil Rights Act ensures equal application of rights, but not necessarily of laws because laws do not always create rights, the Ninth Circuit panel held. And only Congress — not an executive branch agency via administrative regulation, can create a right, the court ruled.
At issue was the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority's siting of a 21-mile light rail line from north Seattle to Sea-Tac Airport. The Authority chose to build a 4.6-mile segment through the Rainier Valley, a predominately minority area in south Seattle. The Authority proposed to build the 4.6-mile segment at street level, unlike most of the rest of the line, which was proposed to be elevated or placed underground.
A group called Save Our Valley filed suit under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Save Our Valley argued that the Authority's plan violated the U.S. Department of Transportation's "disparate impact" regulation, which the agency had adopted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Save Our Valley argued that there would be a disproportionate impact on minority residents, including the taking of residential and business properties, displace of families, disruption of business and safety problems.
U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the regulation did not create the right claimed by Save Our Valley. The group appealed, and the Ninth Circuit panel upheld the lower court.
"The primary questions in this appeal is whether the Department of Transportation's disparate impact regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced through a 1983 action," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court. "The answer to that specific question depends upon the answer to a more general questions: Can a federal agency's regulations ever create individual rights enforceable through 1983? … We hold that an agency regulation cannot create individual rights enforceable through 1983."
"The Supreme Court has held that only violations of rights, not laws, give rise to 1983 actions," Gould continued, citing Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), and Blessing v. Firestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997). "This makes sense because 1983 merely provides a mechanism for enforcing individual rights ‘secured' elsewhere, i.e. rights independently ‘secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States."
The court conceded that federal circuit courts are split on the issue of whether a regulation can create a right. In ruling that a regulation cannot create a right, the Ninth Circuit pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Gonzaga and in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). In Sandoval, the court ruled that the State of Alabama's policy of administering driver's license tests only in English did not violate federal regulations implementing Title VI. In Gonzaga, the high court ruled that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was not enforceable under § 1983 because Congress did not intend to create a federal right by passing the act.
"We believe the Supreme Court's Sandoval and Gonzaga decisions, taken together, compel the conclusion we reach today: That agency regulations cannot independently create rights enforceable through 1983," Gould wrote. "Congress, rather than the executive, is the lawmaker in our democracy."
In a separate opinion, Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that the two-judge majority's reasoning was all wrong. "In the end, however … the majority's bottom line is correct: The disparate impact regulation — although in my view indubitably a valid legislative regulation — does not create a ‘right' within the meaning of 1893," Berzon wrote.
The Case:
Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, No. 01-36172, 03 C.D.O.S> 6038, 2003 DJDAR 7623. Filed July 10, 2003.
The Lawyers:
For Save Our Valley: Michael Gendler, Bricklin & Gendler, (206) 621-8868.
For Sound Transit: Desmond Brown, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, (206) 398-5000.
A Huntington Beach property tax override intended to fund employee retirement benefits violated Proposition 13, a divided Fourth District Court of Appeal panel has ruled. The court majority held that the tax override approved by voters in 1978 allowed the city to assess property owners only for retirement benefits offered at that time � and not for increased benefits the city had given to employees since.
A developer's allegation that a City of San Dimas general plan amendment was an unconstitutional taking has been rejected by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The importance of a complete and clear administrative record for development projects came to the forefront in a case from Merced County in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned approval of a gravel mine because the administrative record was muddled. The court said it could discern little from the administrative record and, therefore, could not uphold the project's environmental impact report.
The state Supreme Court has accepted for review two land use cases in which appellate courts limited the jurisdiction of state officials. One case involved the Coastal Commission and the other concerned the director of the Department of Conservation.
An appellate court has overturned a Superior Court decision requiring the City of Escondido to reimburse the city redevelopment agency's housing fund for 13 years worth of underpayments. The appellate panel instead ruled that, because of the statute of limitations, the city had to reimburse the housing fund for only three years worth of underpayments.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.