After years of debate and false starts, the Supreme Court has held that the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") permits disparate impact claims. In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371, 576 U.S. __ (2015), a divided Court held that specific language in the statute permits plaintiffs to challenge housing practices that have an unintentional but "disproportionate adverse effect on minorities." The Court cautioned that such practices must be "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary," as well as "unjustified by a legitimate rationale," in order to violate the FHA, and that policy considerations require caution in fashioning a disparate impact test. But, the Court provided only faint guidance on the mechanics of that test, ensuring that the lower courts and litigants around the country will continue to struggle with applying the disparate impact standard. One thing is for certain, though: The decision has far-reaching implications, opening up avenues of argument not only in housing development cases, but in litigation and enforcement actions under the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and beyond.
Read our client alert.
Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved
