SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
In Surprise Decision, SCOTUS Rules Against Discriminatory Housing Practices
Court rules that Fair Housing Act allows people to pursue lawsuits when a housing practice has a discriminatory effect, even if that practice wasn't intended to discriminate
Jun 25, 2015
In a decision applauded by housing and civil rights groups on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) allows people to pursue lawsuits when a housing practice has a discriminatory effect, even if that practice wasn't intended to discriminate--an effect known as "disparate impact."
The decision, which was anxiously awaited by housing advocates and lenders alike, was "a bit of a surprise," said SCOTUSblog writer Amy Howe.
The FHA, which became law in 1968, states that housing cannot be denied to individuals based on race. The case before the court involved allegations that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs violated the FHA by giving too many federal low-income housing tax credits to developers who own properties in poor, predominantly minority areas.
The court found that it did. "[T]he Department and its officers...caused continued segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods," the judges wrote in their decision (pdf).
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs, a Texas-based nonprofit called the Inclusive Communities Project, finding that "the Department failed to meet its burden to show that there were no less discriminatory alternatives for allocating the tax credits."
"Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act," the majority opinion concluded.
Advocates like the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) welcomed the ruling, stating that it ensures the FHA "will remain a safeguard against covert discrimination" like disparate impact.
"Strong and effective laws that protect equal opportunity are the cornerstone of our democracy," NLIHC wrote in a press release following the ruling. "We applaud the Supreme Court for its decision today in ensuring that disparate impact will remain a safeguard against covert and unintended discrimination.
"The full reach of the Fair Housing Act is key to expanding opportunity to everyone in this country regardless of the color of one's skin, national origin, religion, gender, family status, and disability. Everyone deserves an opportunity to have adequate housing. If discriminatory practices are allowed it decreases the opportunities for everyone--but especially for those most vulnerable in society--to live the American dream."
As CNN reported earlier this week, the lawsuit "might be the sleeper case of the term," one being watched closely by civil rights groups and housing insurance companies and lenders alike.
Thursday's ruling was "a good example of what's problematic with the proposition that this is a 'liberal' term," said SCOTUSblog writer Eric Citron, referring to the composition of the current court and how its decisions have been trending. "On the one hand, this is a huge victory for the left wing of the Court on a contentious issue; on the other hand, this issue does not get granted with a less conservative Court. It all depends on your baseline."
"This is a big deal for housing rights and civil rights groups," Howe added.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
In a decision applauded by housing and civil rights groups on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) allows people to pursue lawsuits when a housing practice has a discriminatory effect, even if that practice wasn't intended to discriminate--an effect known as "disparate impact."
The decision, which was anxiously awaited by housing advocates and lenders alike, was "a bit of a surprise," said SCOTUSblog writer Amy Howe.
The FHA, which became law in 1968, states that housing cannot be denied to individuals based on race. The case before the court involved allegations that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs violated the FHA by giving too many federal low-income housing tax credits to developers who own properties in poor, predominantly minority areas.
The court found that it did. "[T]he Department and its officers...caused continued segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods," the judges wrote in their decision (pdf).
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs, a Texas-based nonprofit called the Inclusive Communities Project, finding that "the Department failed to meet its burden to show that there were no less discriminatory alternatives for allocating the tax credits."
"Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act," the majority opinion concluded.
Advocates like the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) welcomed the ruling, stating that it ensures the FHA "will remain a safeguard against covert discrimination" like disparate impact.
"Strong and effective laws that protect equal opportunity are the cornerstone of our democracy," NLIHC wrote in a press release following the ruling. "We applaud the Supreme Court for its decision today in ensuring that disparate impact will remain a safeguard against covert and unintended discrimination.
"The full reach of the Fair Housing Act is key to expanding opportunity to everyone in this country regardless of the color of one's skin, national origin, religion, gender, family status, and disability. Everyone deserves an opportunity to have adequate housing. If discriminatory practices are allowed it decreases the opportunities for everyone--but especially for those most vulnerable in society--to live the American dream."
As CNN reported earlier this week, the lawsuit "might be the sleeper case of the term," one being watched closely by civil rights groups and housing insurance companies and lenders alike.
Thursday's ruling was "a good example of what's problematic with the proposition that this is a 'liberal' term," said SCOTUSblog writer Eric Citron, referring to the composition of the current court and how its decisions have been trending. "On the one hand, this is a huge victory for the left wing of the Court on a contentious issue; on the other hand, this issue does not get granted with a less conservative Court. It all depends on your baseline."
"This is a big deal for housing rights and civil rights groups," Howe added.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
In a decision applauded by housing and civil rights groups on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) allows people to pursue lawsuits when a housing practice has a discriminatory effect, even if that practice wasn't intended to discriminate--an effect known as "disparate impact."
The decision, which was anxiously awaited by housing advocates and lenders alike, was "a bit of a surprise," said SCOTUSblog writer Amy Howe.
The FHA, which became law in 1968, states that housing cannot be denied to individuals based on race. The case before the court involved allegations that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs violated the FHA by giving too many federal low-income housing tax credits to developers who own properties in poor, predominantly minority areas.
The court found that it did. "[T]he Department and its officers...caused continued segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods," the judges wrote in their decision (pdf).
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs, a Texas-based nonprofit called the Inclusive Communities Project, finding that "the Department failed to meet its burden to show that there were no less discriminatory alternatives for allocating the tax credits."
"Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act," the majority opinion concluded.
Advocates like the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) welcomed the ruling, stating that it ensures the FHA "will remain a safeguard against covert discrimination" like disparate impact.
"Strong and effective laws that protect equal opportunity are the cornerstone of our democracy," NLIHC wrote in a press release following the ruling. "We applaud the Supreme Court for its decision today in ensuring that disparate impact will remain a safeguard against covert and unintended discrimination.
"The full reach of the Fair Housing Act is key to expanding opportunity to everyone in this country regardless of the color of one's skin, national origin, religion, gender, family status, and disability. Everyone deserves an opportunity to have adequate housing. If discriminatory practices are allowed it decreases the opportunities for everyone--but especially for those most vulnerable in society--to live the American dream."
As CNN reported earlier this week, the lawsuit "might be the sleeper case of the term," one being watched closely by civil rights groups and housing insurance companies and lenders alike.
Thursday's ruling was "a good example of what's problematic with the proposition that this is a 'liberal' term," said SCOTUSblog writer Eric Citron, referring to the composition of the current court and how its decisions have been trending. "On the one hand, this is a huge victory for the left wing of the Court on a contentious issue; on the other hand, this issue does not get granted with a less conservative Court. It all depends on your baseline."
"This is a big deal for housing rights and civil rights groups," Howe added.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.