In this case, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of the United States to decide the issue of whether or not disparate impact claims are cognizable (capable of being judicially heard and determined) under the Fair Housing Act in relation to federally subsidized affordable housing. This case deals with the issue of access to housing for minorities in opportunity-rich neighborhoods where residence offers better health, education and economic outcomes.
The Supreme Court has remanded the case for further proceedings. An important outcome of this case is that the Supreme Court ruled that disparate impact claims may be brought under the FHA and this interpretation is currently binding on all lower courts in the United States.
Since its passage, every court of appeals had interpreted the FHA to prohibit policies that have a discriminatory impact, regardless of intent. The Supreme Court, however, had never ruled on this issue. This case is significant because the Supreme Court preserved this long-standing legal precedent, and reaffirmed the ‘disparate impact principle,’ a critical legal tool in the struggle for inclusive communities, and in fighting racial discrimination and segregation in housing that has persisted in the United States for decades. Studies reveal the adverse impact of residing in racially segregated neighborhoods, including poorer health, education and economic outcomes. Housing market practices that are ostensibly ‘color-blind’ limit access for minorities to homes in neighborhoods that offer high-performing public schools, safe and healthy environments, and wealth-creation through home price appreciation. This contextualizes the importance of the Supreme Court’s historic ruling. The judgment will impact communities across the country. One commentator notes that “The things that are happening in Texas are happening in every city in the United States. They’re all evading civil rights law by concentrating affordable housing in segregated neighborhoods, thus perpetuating segregation — which Justice Kennedy said they cannot do today.”
While an important mechanism for housing rights has been upheld in this case, it should be recognized that disparate impact liability is an onerous and expensive strategy for human rights litigants. But, nevertheless it remains a strategy. One cause for concern is that the judgment suggests a potential narrowing of the scope of the disparate impact principle. The effect of this will only be seen over time.