Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce
Headline: Denial leaves unsettled whether federal civil-rights law bars private discrimination against noncitizens in contracts, keeping the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that §1981 does not apply in place.
Holding: The Court denied review of whether §1981 bars private discrimination against noncitizens in making contracts, leaving the Fifth Circuit’s ruling unchanged.
- Leaves the Fifth Circuit’s ruling intact that §1981 does not cover private alienage discrimination.
- Keeps the national legal question unsettled unless another court or case addresses it.
Summary
Background
A litigant asked the Court to decide whether a federal civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C. §1981, forbids private people or businesses from refusing to make contracts with noncitizens. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that §1981 does not reach alienage discrimination in private contract making (Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce). Earlier the Supreme Court had vacated and sent the case back after decisions saying §1981 covers private racial discrimination.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the rule that bars private racial discrimination under §1981 should also apply when the discrimination is based on alienage (noncitizen status). The Fifth Circuit declined to change its view after the Supreme Court’s decisions about private race discrimination, saying those cases were not on point. Justice White, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from the Court’s refusal to review the case and argued the Court should grant review to settle whether §1981 prohibits private alienage discrimination.
Real world impact
By denying review, the Court left the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in place for that circuit and kept the national question unresolved. The outcome affects noncitizens and private businesses in the Fifth Circuit area when disputes arise over contract formation. Because the Court did not reach the merits, the legal question can still be decided differently by other courts or in a future Supreme Court review.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White’s dissent, with Justice O’Connor joining, urged grant of review to resolve whether §1981 proscribes private discrimination against noncitizens.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?