Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce

1990-03-26
Share:

Headline: Court declines to review whether federal civil-rights law bars private discrimination against noncitizens in private contracts, leaving a lower-court ruling intact while Justice White (joined by O’Connor) dissents.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Leaves Fifth Circuit ruling intact that Section 1981 does not cover private alienage discrimination.
  • Maintains legal uncertainty nationwide about whether noncitizens can use Section 1981.
  • Noncitizens in the Fifth Circuit may lack §1981 protection in private contract cases.
Topics: noncitizen discrimination, private contracts, civil rights law, lower-court decision

Summary

Background

This case asks whether a federal civil-rights law (Section 1981) stops private businesses from refusing to make contracts with people because they are noncitizens. A person challenged a private bank’s conduct, and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that Section 1981 does not reach private discrimination based on alienage. The petitioner sought Supreme Court review; the Court previously sent the case back for reconsideration in light of a decision saying Section 1981 covers private racial discrimination.

Reasoning

On remand, the Fifth Circuit refused to change its view, saying the prior decision involved private racial discrimination and thus did not control whether Section 1981 covers discrimination against noncitizens. The Supreme Court today denied further review, so the Fifth Circuit’s ruling stays in place. Justice White, joined by Justice O’Connor, wrote a dissent explaining he would have granted review to resolve the question.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to take the case, the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that Section 1981 does not prohibit private alienage discrimination remains law in that circuit. The broader national question—whether noncitizens can use Section 1981 to challenge private contract refusals—remains unresolved by the Court and could vary across different federal appeals courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White argued certiorari should be granted to settle the issue, noting earlier cases showed Section 1981 bars official discrimination against aliens and that other decisions extended Section 1981 to private racial discrimination.

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?

Related Cases