DS News

60 60 60 court originally ruled that the manner in which the Texas Department of Housing allocated the tax credits, though neutral, had a disparate impact on the basis of race. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon struck down the rule in November 2014, saying that only claims of intentional discrimination could be made under the Fair Housing Act. At the time of his ruling, Leon said the belief of those in the Administration who interpret the Fair Housing Act to allow disparate impact claims "appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking on steroids." e issue has become a heated one in the last few years. e rule allowing disparate impact claims, in which are allegations made based on neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect, was issued by the Obama Administration in February 2013. e rule has since resulted in several multi-million dollar fair housing settlements with Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and other lenders. Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, framed the case this way: "e case asks the simple but vital question of whether the United States Fair Housing Act allows private parties to challenge state practices under a disparate impact theory, even when a government is cleared of any charges of conscious racial discrimination." Epstein pointed out that the current HUD Fair Housing regulations work at cross purposes with low-income housing programs, insofar as its rigid guidelines require local governments to give extra attention to low-income areas, which tend to have a higher proportion of minority residents than the state's higher-income areas. "HUD's left hand has no idea what its right hand is doing, given that faithful compliance with the low-income housing credit program has to have a disparate impact in order to meet its statutory mission." While the Court ruled that disparate impact claims are allowed under the Fair Housing Act, that ruling came with a caveat. "So the Court holds that there is a disparate impact claim under the FHA as a matter of statutory interpretation, but the Court cautions that remedial orders in disparate impact cases that impose racial targets or quotas could be unconstitutional," Attorney Kevin Russell said on the SCOTUS blog. ". . . e Court emphasizes, however, that disparate impact liability should be impose cautiously. To avoid constitutional problems, statistical disparity is not enough." Secretary Castro praised the Supreme Court's decision via Twitter: "Today's SCOTUS opinion upholding disparate impact analysis under Fair Housing Act is a strong victory for equal opportunity in our country." His official statement elaborated further. "e Supreme Court has made it clear that HUD can continue to use this critical tool to eliminate the unfair barriers that have deferred and derailed too many dreams. Working with our partners on the ground, we will continue to do all we can to build a housing market that treats all Americans with basic dignity and respect." e White House celebrated the ruling: "Too many Americans are victims of more subtle forms of discrimination, such as predatory lending, exclusionary zoning, and development policies that limit affordable housing. is decision reflects the reality that discrimination often operates not just out in the open, but in more hidden forms. And, it preserves a longstanding and important method for challenging and eliminating those practices and continuing the work to end discrimination in housing." Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-California), praised the ruling: "I'm pleased that in their decision, the justices recognized the importance of disparate impact liability in uncovering discriminatory intent, and noted that appropriate safeguards in the use of disparate impact already exist, such as requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate causality between the defendant's practices and its adverse effects. e disparate impact standard is absolutely essential to providing for fair housing throughout our nation. Its decades-long use to weed out discriminatory practices that create barriers to housing is critically important for minority individuals and communities. But our work is not finished." Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, said: "Today's decision is a major victory for civil rights and equal opportunity in America. As recent events have shown, our country continues to struggle with a legacy of racial injustice and inequality. e court's ruling preserves one of the most important tools we have to fight discrimination and ensure that all Americans have fair access to housing and economic opportunity. We need to continue efforts to

• Cover