News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Tuesday March 28th 2023

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

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)