Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

Last updated

Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 21, 2015
Decided June 25, 2015
Full case nameTexas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., et al.
Docket no. 13-1371
Citations576 U.S. 519 ( more )
135 S. Ct. 2507; 192 L. Ed. 2d 514
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Holding
Disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas
DissentAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas
Laws applied
Fair Housing Act

Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [1] In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, the Court held that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but that such claims require a plaintiff to prove it is the defendant's policies that cause a disparity. [2]

Contents

Background

The Federal Government provides tax credits for developers who build low income housing. [3] These credits are administered by designated state agencies, and preference is given for the development of housing in low-income areas. [4] The Inclusive Communities Project is a Texas-based non-profit organization that helps low-income families obtain affordable housing. [5] In 2008, they filed suit against the Texas agency responsible for administering these tax credits, claiming it disproportionately allocated too many tax credits "in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods." [6] To support their claim, the Inclusive Communities Project cited statistics that showed "92.29% of [low-income housing tax credit] units in the city of Dallas were located in census tracts with less than 50% Caucasian residents." [7] Both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Inclusive Communities Project, holding that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [8] The Texas Department of Housing and Community then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. [9]

Opinion of the Court

Majority opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, which in a 5–4 decision held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [10] Justice Kennedy began his analysis by reviewing the historic development of disparate impact claims in federal law and concluded that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact liability in a series of amendments to the Fair Housing Act that were enacted in the year 1988. [11] Justice Kennedy also argued that "[r]ecognition of disparate-impact liability under the FHA also plays a role in uncovering discriminatory intent: It permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment." [12] However, Justice Kennedy also held that housing authorities and private developers should have an opportunity to defend against disparate impact claims by stating and explaining "the valid interest served by their policies." [13] Justice Kennedy also cautioned that "a disparate-impact claim that relies on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a defendant’s policy or policies causing that disparity." [14]

Dissenting opinions

Justice Samuel Alito issued a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. [15] Justice Alito argued that the Fair Housing Act never authorized such disparate impact claims in 1968, when the law was enacted, "[a]nd nothing has happened since then to change the law's meaning". [16] Justice Thomas also issued a separate dissenting opinion in which he questioned Justice Kennedy's reliance upon Griggs v. Duke Power Co. to support the conclusion that the Fair Housing Act permits disparate impact claims. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James E. Graves Jr.</span> American judge (born 1953)

James Earl Graves Jr. is an American lawyer who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay. The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and, therefore, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case which analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog. In a 6–3 opinion, the Court held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. However, the Court remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to determine whether the officer's extension of the traffic stop was independently justified by reasonable suspicion. Some analysts have suggested that the Court's decision to limit police authority was influenced by ongoing protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. Other states with similar laws may also be impacted.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement. In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process". This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.

References

  1. ↑ Texas Dept. of Hous. and Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371, 576 U.S. ___, slip op. at 23 (2015).
  2. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 16-17, 19-20.
  3. ↑ 26 U.S.C.   § 42.
  4. ↑ 26 U.S.C. §§ 42(d), 42(m).
  5. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 2.
  6. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 2-3.
  7. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 3 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  8. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 4-5; Ariane de Vogue, Court upholds key tool to combat housing discrimination , CNN, June 25, 2015 (last visited July 5, 2015).
  9. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 5.
  10. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 23; Editorial Board, Affordable Housing, Racial Isolation , N.Y. Times, June 29, 2015 (last visited July 5, 2015) (hereinafter cited as Affordable Housing), Paul Hancock and Andrew C. Glass, The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision , SCOTUSBlog.com, June 26, 2015 (last visited July 5, 2015).
  11. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 7-16; Affordable Housing; Hancock.
  12. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 17.
  13. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 18; Hancock.
  14. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 19-20.
  15. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 1 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  16. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 2 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  17. ↑ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 1, 8-10, 12 (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("Griggs’ disparate-impact doctrine defies not only the statutory text, but reality itself.").


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.