On January 21st, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The question before the court is whether the disparate impact standard can be used under the Fair Housing Act. In short, disparate impact says that a policy that appears neutral on its face may be discriminatory if it has a disproportionate negative impact on members of a protected class under the Fair Housing Act.
Links to two recent blog posts about the Inclusive Communities Project case are included below. If you’re interested in learning more about the case and its relevance to the fair housing world, these posts are a great place to start. Please pass these posts along to your networks and through social media.
The disparate-impact framework remains essential and effective (SCOTUSblog 1/7/15)
John Paul Schnapper-Casteras is Special Counsel for Appellate and Supreme Court Advocacy at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Community Project, Inc.
A fair and proper interpretation of the Fair Housing Act requires an understanding of the compelling reasons the Act was passed in the first place – and its necessity today. The historical perspective informs not only how the statute’s disparate-impact framework should be interpreted, but also which constitutional principles bear upon the Supreme Court’s analysis of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.
Romney was right about disparate-impact (SCOTUSblog 1/8/15)
Myron Orfield is Professor of Law and Director of the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota.
Is there a disparate-impact cause of action arising under the Fair Housing Act?
George Romney and John Mitchell thought so. As Richard Nixon’s HUD secretary and attorney general, they brought the case that persuaded the Eighth Circuit: United States v. City of Black Jack, in 1974. Today, the eleven federal circuits to consider the question have unanimously agreed with Romney, and with Nixon’s Justice Department. A federal rule states there is a Fair Housing Act disparate-impact cause of action. Finally, the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, per that racial radical Warren Burger, found a disparate-impact cause of action under Title VII and, more recently in Smith v. City of Jackson, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – two statutes with language that mirrors the Fair Housing Act.
To keep up on the latest Disparate Impact developments, including blog posts, op-eds, and other pieces in the media, check the Housing Center blog or go to NFHA’s Disparate Impact page.