Fair Housing Clinic Files Amicus Brief for SCOTUS Disparate Impact Case
(1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?
For a summary of the facts of this case, see our prior post: Fair Housing Clinic Works on Another Supreme Court Case.
The Clinic’s brief asserted that a Fair Housing Act violation could be based on disparate impact, and urged a modified Arlington Heights II standard for governmental actors, as used in Arthur v. City of Toledo, Ohio, 782 F.2d 565, 574-575 (6th Cir. 1986) and Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 263 F.3d 627, (6th Cir. 2001), rev’d in part, vacated in part sub nom. 538 U.S. 188 (2003). The Clinic’s brief was one of 9 amicus briefs filed in support of this theory.
The brief’s authors include: attorneys Brad D. Eier, Jeremy M. Samuels and Thomas G. Haren and Fair Housing Law Clinic students Alexis B. Boursier, Lauren Hamilton, Gerald Henn and Charles Murphy.