News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Wednesday August 21st 2019

Support the Blue Line

Subscribe to the Blue Line

That's what she said

city council transportation energy municipalization xcel housing urban planning april fools bicycles climate action election 2011 density boulder county affordable housing open space election agriculture renewables CU local food climate change election 2013 development jefferson parkway youth pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD immigration mountain bikes boards and commissions GMOs decarbonization urban design transit fracking plan boulder farming fires wildlife planning board colorado politics architecture downtown smart regs new era colorado land use natural gas plutonium homeless journalism transit village parking commuting ghgs radioactive waste rental taxes height limits coal historic preservation walkability energy efficiency april fools 2015 Neighborhoods zoning population growth diversity historic district flood students growth North Boulder gardens arts education election 2018 solar bus election 2010 University Hill water supply nutrition RTD bike lane electric utility library safety sprawl groundwater water quality election 2012 affairs of the heart april fools 2016 renewable energy organic flood plain planning reserve mayor zero waste blue line wetlands county commissioners hogan-pancost politics electric vehicle hazardous waste transportation master plan obama longmont ballot right-sizing street design golden Mapleton solar panels PV climate smart loan recycling comprehensive plan diagonal plaza bears colorado legislature flood mitigation campaign finance congestion conservation easement food epa boulder junction pesticide drought oil flooding inequality election 2016 road diet planning bus rapid transit commercial development daily camera climate change deniers automobile PUC children ecocycle community cycles BVCP Newlands community league of women voters wind power public health ken wilson david miller sam weaver civil rights mlk west tsa crime public spaces city attorney boulder creek al bartlett marijuana green points technology EV Orchard Grove Whittier arizona

The Atlantic | The Supreme Court Barely Saves the Fair Housing Act


“From a distance, the result in Inclusive Communities looks like a win. Writing for himself and the four moderate-liberals, Justice Kennedy explained that the disparate-impact interpretation had a lot going for it: it tracks two other Court precedents concerning the employment-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; it has been upheld by every court of appeals to consider the issue; Congress readopted the Act in 1988 with language that seems to recognize disparate-impact liability in all but a few categories of cases; and it has become a part of the landscape of urban planning, such that many large cities—including San Francisco, New York, Boston, and Baltimore–submitted a brief asking the Court to leave the Act alone. Eliminating disparate-impact claims would thus destabilize not only other areas of civil-rights law, but also a great deal of city planning. ‘The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society,’ Kennedy concluded.

“But the majority opinion is less a ringing reaffirmation than a stern warning—claims like those brought by the plaintiffs in this case, Kennedy wrote, actually might raise ‘serious constitutional questions.’ That is, the use of statistics, no matter how persuasive, to show disparate impact without additional evidence creates a danger of ‘abusive disparate impact claims’ that may hobble local governments and developers. Without strict safeguards, the opinion said, ‘disparate-impact liability might cause race to be used and considered in a pervasive way and ‘would almost inexorably lead’ government or private entities to use ‘numerical quotas.’

“Kennedy concluded that ‘we must remain wary of policies that reduce homeowners to nothing more than their race.’ And the implication is that anything outside the ‘heartland’ of disparate-impact liability—that is, ‘zoning laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any suffi­cient justification’—would be dangerous territory.

“These particular plaintiffs, the opinion made clear, almost certainly must lose on remand. Disparate impact lives on. But the lower courts have plenty of ammunition in this opinion to use against any novel use of the FHA.”

Read the entire analysis at the Atlantic | The Supreme Court Barely Saves the Fair Housing Act.

Rate this article: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

What do you think? Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.