SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Justice Enforcement 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) This Act is made necessary by a decision of the Supreme 
        Court in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) that 
        significantly impairs statutory protections against 
        discrimination that Congress has erected over a period of 
        almost 4 decades. The Sandoval decision undermines these 
        statutory protections by stripping victims of discrimination 
        (defined under regulations that Congress required Federal 
        departments and agencies to promulgate to implement title VI of 
        the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.)) of the 
        right to bring action in Federal court to redress the 
        discrimination and by casting doubt on the validity of the 
        regulations themselves.
            (2) The Sandoval decision attacks settled expectations 
        created by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1964 
        Congress adopted title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
        ensure that Federal dollars would not be used to subsidize or 
        support programs or activities that discriminated on racial, 
        color, or national origin grounds.
            (3) From the outset, Congress and the executive branch made 
        clear that the regulatory process would be used to ensure broad 
        protections for beneficiaries of the law. The first regulations 
        promulgated by the Department of Justice under title VI of the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade the use of ``criteria or 
        methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting 
        individuals to discrimination . . .'' (section 80.3 of title 
        45, Code of Federal Regulations) and prohibited retaliation 
        against persons participating in litigation or administrative 
        resolution of charges of discrimination brought under the Act. 
        These regulations were drafted by the same executive branch 
        officials who played a central role in drafting title VI of the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964.
            (4) These regulations have never been invalidated. In 1966, 
        Congress considered and rejected a proposal to invalidate the 
        disparate impact regulations promulgated pursuant to title VI 
        of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court has 
        recognized that Congress's failure to disapprove regulations 
        implies that the regulations accurately reflect congressional 
        intent. North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 533-34 
        (1982).
            (5) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed 
        to confer a benefit on persons who were discriminated against. 
        Title VI of such Act relied heavily on private attorneys 
        general for effective enforcement. Congress acknowledged that 
        it could not secure compliance solely through enforcement 
        actions initiated by the Attorney General. Newman v. Piggie 
        Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (per curiam).
            (6) The Supreme Court has made it clear that individuals 
        suffering discrimination in violation of title VI of the Civil 
        Rights Act of 1964 have a private right of action in the 
        Federal courts, and that this is necessary for effective 
        protection of the law, although Congress did not make such a 
        right of action explicit in the statute. Cannon v. University 
        of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).
            (7) Notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in 
        Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) to abandon prior precedent and 
        require explicit statutory statements of a right of action, 
        Congress and the Courts both before and after Cort have 
        recognized an implied right of action under title VI of the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964. For example, Congress has 
        consistently provided the means for enforcing the statutes. In 
        1972, Congress established a right to attorney's fees in 
        private actions brought under title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1964.
            (8) The Supreme Court had no basis in law or in legislative 
        history in Sandoval for denying a right of action under 
        regulations promulgated pursuant to title VI of the Civil 
        Rights Act of 1964 while permitting it under the statute. The 
        regulations were congressionally mandated and their 
        promulgation was specifically directed by Congress under 
        section 602 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) ``to effectuate'' 
        the antidiscrimination provisions of the statute. Title VI of 
        the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stressed the importance of the 
        regulations by requiring them to be ``approved by the 
        President''.
            (9) Regulations that prohibit practices that have the 
        effect of discrimination are consistent with prohibitions of 
        disparate treatment that require a showing of intent, as the 
        Supreme Court has acknowledged in the following decisions:
                    (A) A disparate impact standard allows a court to 
                reach discrimination that could actually exist under 
                the guise of compliance with the law. Griggs v. Duke 
                Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
                    (B) Evidence of a disproportionate burden will 
                often be the starting point in any analysis of unlawful 
                discrimination. Village of Arlington Heights v. 
                Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
                    (C) An invidious purpose may often be inferred from 
                the totality of the relevant facts, including, where 
                true, that the practice bears more heavily on one race 
                than another. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
                    (D) The disparate impact method of proof is 
                critical to ferreting out stereotypes underlying 
                intentional discrimination. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & 
                Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988).
            (10) The interpretation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) as prohibiting practices that 
        have disparate impact and that are not justified as necessary 
        to achieve the goals of the programs or activities supported by 
        the Federal financial assistance is powerfully reinforced by 
        the use of such a standard in enforcing title VII of the Civil 
        Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.). When the Supreme 
        Court wavered on the application of a disparate impact standard 
        under title VII, Congress specifically reinstated it as law in 
        the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-166; 105 Stat. 
        1071).
            (11) By reinstating a private right of action under title 
        VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress is not acting in a 
        manner that would expose entities subject to that title to 
        unfair findings of discrimination. The legal standard for a 
        disparate impact claim has never been structured so that a 
        finding of discrimination could be based on numerical imbalance 
        alone.
            (12) In contrast, a failure to reinstate or confirm a 
        private right of action would leave vindication of the rights 
        to equality of opportunity solely to Federal agencies, which 
        may fail to take necessary and appropriate action because of 
        administrative overburden or other reasons. Action by Congress 
        to specify a private right of action is necessary to ensure 
        that persons will have a remedy if they are denied equal access 
        to education, housing, health, environmental protection, 
        transportation, and many other programs and services by 
        practices of entities subject to title VI of the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964 that result in discrimination.
            (13) As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in 
        Sandoval, courts have dismissed numerous claims brought under 
        the regulations promulgated pursuant to title VI of the Civil 
        Rights Act of 1964 that challenged actions with an unjustified 
        discriminatory effect.
            (14) The right to maintain a private right of action under 
        a provision added under this Act to title VI of the Civil 
        Rights Act of 1964 will be effectuated by a waiver of sovereign 
        immunity in the same manner as sovereign immunity is waived 
        under the remaining provisions of that title.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION.

    Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``(a) No''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b)(1)(A) Discrimination (including exclusion from participation 
and denial of benefits) based on disparate impact is established under 
this title only if--
            ``(i) a person aggrieved by discrimination on the basis of 
        race, color, or national origin (referred to in this title as 
        an `aggrieved person') demonstrates that an entity subject to 
        this title (referred to in this title as a `covered entity') 
        has a policy or practice that causes a disparate impact on the 
        basis of race, color, or national origin and the covered entity 
        fails to demonstrate that the challenged policy or practice is 
        related to and necessary to achieve the nondiscriminatory goals 
        of the program or activity alleged to have been operated in a 
        discriminatory manner; or
            ``(ii) the aggrieved person demonstrates (consistent with 
        the demonstration required under title VII with respect to an 
        `alternative employment practice') that a less discriminatory 
        alternative policy or practice exists, and the covered entity 
        refuses to adopt such alternative policy or practice.
    ``(B)(i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular policy or 
practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i), 
the aggrieved person shall demonstrate that each particular challenged 
policy or practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the 
aggrieved person demonstrates to the court that the elements of a 
covered entity's decisionmaking process are not capable of separation 
for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one policy 
or practice.
    ``(ii) If the covered entity demonstrates that a specific policy or 
practice does not cause the disparate impact, the covered entity shall 
not be required to demonstrate that such policy or practice is 
necessary to achieve the goals of its program or activity.
    ``(2) A demonstration that a policy or practice is necessary to 
achieve the goals of a program or activity may not be used as a defense 
against a claim of intentional discrimination under this title.
    ``(3) In this subsection, the term `demonstrates' means meets the 
burdens of production and persuasion.
    ``(c) No person in the United States shall be subjected to 
discrimination, including retaliation, because such person opposed any 
policy or practice prohibited by this title, or because such person 
made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.''.

SEC. 4. RIGHTS OF ACTION.

    Section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Each Federal department 
        and agency which is empowered''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Any person aggrieved by the failure of a covered entity to 
comply with this title, including any regulation promulgated pursuant 
to this title, may bring a civil action in any Federal or State court 
of competent jurisdiction to enforce such person's rights.''.

SEC. 5. RIGHT OF RECOVERY.

    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) 
is amended by inserting after section 602 the following:

``SEC. 602A. ACTIONS BROUGHT BY AGGRIEVED PERSONS.

    ``(a) Claims Based on Proof of Intentional Discrimination.--In an 
action brought by an aggrieved person under this title against a 
covered entity who has engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination 
(not a practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) 
prohibited under this title (including its implementing regulations), 
the aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal relief (including 
compensatory and punitive damages), attorney's fees (including expert 
fees), and costs, except that punitive damages are not available 
against a government, government agency, or political subdivision.
    ``(b) Claims Based on the Disparate Impact Standard of Proof.--In 
an action brought by an aggrieved person under this title against a 
covered entity who has engaged in unlawful discrimination based on 
disparate impact prohibited under this title (including its 
implementing regulations), the aggrieved person may recover equitable 
relief, attorney's fees (including expert fees), and costs.''.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, are 
retroactive to April 24, 2001, and effective as of that date.
    (b) Application.--This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, 
apply to all actions or proceedings pending on or after April 24, 2001, 
except as to an action against a State on a claim brought under the 
disparate impact standard, as to which the effective date is the date 
of enactment of this Act.
Environmental Justice Enforcement Act of 2006 - Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that discrimination based on disparate impact under federally assisted programs (including exclusion from participation and denial of benefits) is established only if a person aggrieved by discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin demonstrates that: (1) a covered entity has a policy or practice causing a disparate impact on that basis and fails to demonstrate that the challenged policy or practice is related to and necessary to achieve the nondiscriminatory goals of the program or activity alleged to have been operated in a discriminatory manner; or (2) a less discriminatory alternative policy or practice exists, but the covered entity refuses to adopt it.

Authorizes an aggrieved person to: (1) bring a civil action in federal or state court to enforce such person's rights; and (2) recover equitable relief, attorney's fees, and costs.

Makes the effective date of this Act retroactive to April 24, 2001.
A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and remedies under civil rights statutes.