Here Are The Red State Dems Voting Against Gorsuch


April 4, 2017

11 Democrat Senators represent states where Donald Trump won against Hillary Clinton. Only three of them, Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly from Indiana, have promised to vote for the Constitution-loving Judge Gorsuch.

The other eight have pledged to filibuster and vote against the qualified Judge Gorsuch. Most of them are up for reelection in 2018.
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) – 2018
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) – 2018
Bill Nelson (Florida) – 2018
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) – 2018
Gary Peters (Michigan) – 2020
Claire McCaskill (Missouri) – 2018
Sherrod Brown (Ohio) – 2018
Joe Tester (Montana) – 2018
If you live in any of these states, call your senator immediately and let them know that you’ll vote agaisnt them in 2018 and help sweep the Senate for Republicans to Make America Great Again.

trump official confirm judge gorsuch
Read more at: http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/here-are-the-red-state-dems-voting-against-gorsuch#40rdPYosp7ZIwiPE.99

I REJECT THE SCOTUS!!! THE PEOPLE RULE THIS LAND!! THE SCOTUS ARE PAID OFF SCUMBAG THUGS WHO ARE SEEMINGLY HELL-BENT ON DESTROYING AMERICA. THEY SHOULD BE WEARING SPONSOR PATCHES LIKE NASCAR DRIVERS SO WE KNOW WHO IS SUPPORTING THEIR CRIMINALITY!!!


The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the disparate impact theory of liability can be applied to the Fair Housing Act means mortgage lenders must be even more vigilant in their ongoing testing and evaluation of business practices that could be interpreted as even unintentional discrimination.

supreme court sponsors

Among other things, the Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent, to deny or otherwise make unavailable a dwelling to a person…or to discriminate against any person making certain real estate transactions because of race or other protected characteristic.”

The Court, which split 5-4 on the case, ruled that the language in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Fair Housing Act, including the phrase to “otherwise make unavailable” indicated that neutral policies and/or practices that cause discriminatory effects could be subject to action, even if intent to discriminate isn’t found.

In a disparate treatment case, a lender accused of discrimination would only need to provide (not prove) that a practice or policy that has a discriminatory effect had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. As long as a plaintiff could not prove the policy or practice was a pretext for discrimination, the lender prevails.

In a disparate impact case, the burden on the lender is far greater. Instead of having the burden to articulate a legitimate reason, a plaintiff merely needs to show that a seemingly-neutral policy caused discrimination. Once that is shown, the burden shifts to the lender to prove that the practice in question is a business necessity.

A business necessity is a practice that serves the legitimate employment goals of the lender in a significant way. Importantly, in describing the business necessity defense, the Court noted that businesses need to be free to make “practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free enterprise system.”

Yet, even if a lender meets this burden, the plaintiff might still prevail by showing that other practices would serve the lender’s interest with less of a discriminatory effect.

Ultimately, what this means for lenders is that regular regression testing is essential. A lender with disparate lending patterns will have to prove that any challenged practices are necessary, and such practices were put into place due to a lack of less-discriminatory alternatives available to reach the same goal.

Lenders should also immediately review their pricing policies; the discretion given to loan officers in pricing; pricing exception policies; and branch, loan officer and manager compensation practices.

Obviously, lenders who do not have statistically significant lending disparities do not have to worry about disparate impact claims, but they cannot thumbnail such conclusions or merely rely upon shortcuts.

Lenders must perform regular regression analyses consistent with those performed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and should do so at corporate, branch and regional levels.

Moreover, lenders should carefully examine the reasons why they maintain certain pricing and compensation practices and ensure they can explain their necessity, even if no disparity exists.

Many lenders will need to consider placing additional controls in place so as to ensure their policies and practices are not unnecessarily broad.

Beyond the compliance concerns, lenders should consider how this decision could impact day-to-day business. In many respects, larger institutions will need to be more careful about pricing and compensation. Even small numerical disparities can give rise to statistically significant disparities given the overall volume of business.

The bandwidth of a standard deviation (the test that measures the disparity) gets smaller the larger the number of data points.

Smaller lenders in fact, could actually benefit because the smaller number of files likely provide a slightly greater degree of flexibility. Since pricing will likely need to be flatter across the board, lenders that are capable of providing more personalized service and faster decision-making will have an advantage.

Relationships with referral sources and overall reputation for service will be key as the pricing distinctions become blurred.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision will significantly affect the lending industry and lenders should carefully evaluate their compliance, origination, pricing and compensation strategies.

http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/regulation/how-disparate-impact-ruling-affects-lenders-daily-operations-1055261-1.html

Obama Collecting Personal Data For A Secret Race Database


By Paul Sperry July 18, 2015 | 4:00pm

A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.

NSA cellphones used to be called tracking devices

So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.

Housing database

The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups — white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino — and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances.

The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.

Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.

HUD plans to drill down to an even more granular level, detailing the proximity of black residents to transportation sites, good schools, parks and even supermarkets. If the agency’s social engineers rule the distance between blacks and these suburban “amenities” is too far, municipalities must find ways to close the gap or forfeit federal grant money and face possible lawsuits for housing discrimination.

Civil-rights groups will have access to the agency’s sophisticated mapping software, and will participate in city plans to re-engineer neighborhoods under new community outreach requirements.

“By opening this data to everybody, everyone in a community can weigh in,” Obama said. “If you want affordable housing nearby, now you’ll have the data you need to make your case.”

Mortgage database

Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records.

Mortgage contracts won’t be the only financial records vacuumed up by the database. According to federal documents, the repository will include “all credit lines,” from credit cards to student loans to car loans — anything reported to credit bureaus. This is even more information than the IRS collects.

The FHFA will also pry into your personal assets and debts and whether you have any bankruptcies. The agency even wants to know the square footage and lot size of your home, as well as your interest rate.

FHFA will share the info with Obama’s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which acts more like a civil-rights agency, aggressively investigating lenders for racial bias.

The FHFA has offered no clear explanation as to why the government wants to sweep up so much sensitive information on Americans, other than stating it’s for “research” and “policymaking.”

However, CFPB Director Richard Cordray was more forthcoming, explaining in a recent talk to the radical California-based Greenlining Institute: “We will be better able to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns.”

Credit database

CFPB is separately amassing a database to monitor ordinary citizens’ credit-card transactions. It hopes to vacuum up some 900 million credit-card accounts — all sorted by race — representing roughly 85% of the US credit-card market. Why? To sniff out “disparities” in interest rates, charge-offs and collections.

Employment database

CFPB also just finalized a rule requiring all regulated banks to report data on minority hiring to an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. It will collect reams of employment data, broken down by race, to police diversity on Wall Street as part of yet another fishing expedition.

School database

Through its mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection project, the Education Department is gathering information on student suspensions and expulsions, by race, from every public school district in the country. Districts that show disparities in discipline will be targeted for reform.

Those that don’t comply will be punished. Several already have been forced to revise their discipline policies, which has led to violent disruptions in classrooms.

Obama’s educrats want to know how many blacks versus whites are enrolled in gifted-and-talented and advanced placement classes.

Schools that show blacks and Latinos under-enrolled in such curricula, to an undefined “statistically significant degree,” could open themselves up to investigation and lawsuits by the department’s Civil Rights Office.

Count on a flood of private lawsuits to piggyback federal discrimination claims, as civil-rights lawyers use the new federal discipline data in their legal strategies against the supposedly racist US school system.

Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.

Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.

The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage bust.

Kiss Chinatown goodbye under Obama data-mined racial quota system?

Posted by    Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:30pm

Obama admin racial data mining is about loss of freedom, not ending discrimination.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chinatown-manhattan-2004.jpg

After the recent Supreme Court ruling on “disparate impact” in housing, Amy predicted that social justice activists and lawyers had been given powerful precedent to use racial and ethnic data mining against developers who did not intentionally discriminate:

When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project last week, social justice activists claimed a major victory in the battle against segregated housing. The decision endorsed a “disparate impact” analysis as applied to a Texas program that plaintiffs claimed distributes federal low income housing credits disproportionately, awarding too many credits to inner-city, predominately black neighborhoods and too few to suburban, predominately white neighborhoods….

Kennedy and the majority endorsed a form of social engineering just as pernicious as those that disparate impact analyses aim to correct. Instead of creating “more equality,” these methods do nothing but invent controversies for social justice groups and the courts to work out, and, as Clarence Thomas says, presume that defendants are “guilty of discrimination until proved innocent.”

In the NY Post, Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institution, highlights how massive data mining by numerous branches of the Obama administration is set to light a fire nationwide even where there is no government-sponsored, or intentional private discrimination in order to recreate communities and businesses, Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database:

A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.

So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.

Needless to say, the government database angle is generating the most interest, and rightly so.

Drudge Obama Secret Race Database

But it’s more than government power abuse.

If carried to it’s logical conclusion, the housing diversity initiative should result in communities with concentrated ethnicity — such as the Chinatowns, or Little Italy’s, or increasingly, Little Koreas — being forced to diversity. And don’t forget areas, particularly in New York City, with solid concentrations of Orthodox or Hasidic Jews.

The Post article continues:

The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups — white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino — and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances.

The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.

Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.

I realize that the goal of the law is to increase non-white groups in white areas. But that’s just the flip side of “desegregating” areas of non-white concentration obtained through the voluntary affinity of various group members.

Such voluntary affinity is a far cry from active discrimination. If people not of Chinese heritage were prohibited from living in a Chinatown by explicit or implicit city or private policies or conduct, that would be one thing.

But the mere fact that people of one racial, religious or ethnic origin are voluntarily drawn to a particular area for a variety of cultural reasons should be none of the government’s business.

But nowadays, everything seems to be the government’s business.

So kiss Chinatown goodbye if the government diversity push is honestly and fairly applied.

Just another loss of freedom.

The Supreme Court ???


How Disparate Impact Ruling Affects Lenders’ Daily Operations

JUL 6, 2015 10:45am ET
supreme court sponsors

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the disparate impact theory of liability can be applied to the Fair Housing Act means mortgage lenders must be even more vigilant in their ongoing testing and evaluation of business practices that could be interpreted as even unintentional discrimination.

Among other things, the Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent, to deny or otherwise make unavailable a dwelling to a person…or to discriminate against any person making certain real estate transactions because of race or other protected characteristic.”

The Court, which split 5-4 on the case, ruled that the language in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Fair Housing Act, including the phrase to “otherwise make unavailable” indicated that neutral policies and/or practices that cause discriminatory effects could be subject to action, even if intent to discriminate isn’t found.

In a disparate treatment case, a lender accused of discrimination would only need to provide (not prove) that a practice or policy that has a discriminatory effect had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. As long as a plaintiff could not prove the policy or practice was a pretext for discrimination, the lender prevails.

In a disparate impact case, the burden on the lender is far greater. Instead of having the burden to articulate a legitimate reason, a plaintiff merely needs to show that a seemingly-neutral policy caused discrimination. Once that is shown, the burden shifts to the lender to prove that the practice in question is a business necessity.

A business necessity is a practice that serves the legitimate employment goals of the lender in a significant way. Importantly, in describing the business necessity defense, the Court noted that businesses need to be free to make “practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free enterprise system.”

Yet, even if a lender meets this burden, the plaintiff might still prevail by showing that other practices would serve the lender’s interest with less of a discriminatory effect.

Ultimately, what this means for lenders is that regular regression testing is essential. A lender with disparate lending patterns will have to prove that any challenged practices are necessary, and such practices were put into place due to a lack of less-discriminatory alternatives available to reach the same goal.

Lenders should also immediately review their pricing policies; the discretion given to loan officers in pricing; pricing exception policies; and branch, loan officer and manager compensation practices.

Obviously, lenders who do not have statistically significant lending disparities do not have to worry about disparate impact claims, but they cannot thumbnail such conclusions or merely rely upon shortcuts.

Lenders must perform regular regression analyses consistent with those performed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and should do so at corporate, branch and regional levels.

Moreover, lenders should carefully examine the reasons why they maintain certain pricing and compensation practices and ensure they can explain their necessity, even if no disparity exists.

Many lenders will need to consider placing additional controls in place so as to ensure their policies and practices are not unnecessarily broad.

Beyond the compliance concerns, lenders should consider how this decision could impact day-to-day business. In many respects, larger institutions will need to be more careful about pricing and compensation. Even small numerical disparities can give rise to statistically significant disparities given the overall volume of business.

The bandwidth of a standard deviation (the test that measures the disparity) gets smaller the larger the number of data points.

Smaller lenders in fact, could actually benefit because the smaller number of files likely provide a slightly greater degree of flexibility. Since pricing will likely need to be flatter across the board, lenders that are capable of providing more personalized service and faster decision-making will have an advantage.

Relationships with referral sources and overall reputation for service will be key as the pricing distinctions become blurred.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision will significantly affect the lending industry and lenders should carefully evaluate their compliance, origination, pricing and compensation strategies.

http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/regulation/how-disparate-impact-ruling-affects-lenders-daily-operations-1055261-1.html


Developers: Beware of Disparate Impact After Supreme Court Ruling

01-July-2015 Authors J. William Callison

http://www.faegrebd.com/23196


In Fair Housing Act Case, Supreme Court Backs ‘Disparate Impact’ Claims

June 25, 201512:26 PM ET by Bill Chappelle
The Supreme Court handed a victory to the Obama administration and civil rights groups on Thursday when, by a 5-4 decision, it upheld a key tool used for more than four decades to fight housing discrimination.

The Supreme Court handed a victory to the Obama administration and civil rights groups on Thursday when, by a 5-4 decision, it upheld a key tool used for more than four decades to fight housing discrimination.

Eric Gay/AP

Civil rights groups won a victory Thursday, as the Supreme Court ruled that claims of racial discrimination in housing cases shouldn’t be limited by questions of intent.

The court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision in a case in which a nonprofit group, the Inclusive Communities Project, said that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs had contributed to “segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods.”

The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects — without proving that they’re the result of discriminatory intentions.

“Justice Anthony Kennedy surprised many legal experts by siding with the court’s four liberals,” NPR’s Carrie Johnson reports. “Business groups had long sought to limit lawsuits over the 1968 Fair Housing Act.”

Reacting to the ruling, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says, “While our nation has made tremendous progress since the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, disparate impact claims remain an all-too-necessary mechanism for rooting out discrimination in housing and lending.”

The majority wrote, “Recognition of disparate-impact claims is consistent with the FHA’s central purpose” of ending discriminatory practices in housing.

The justices wrote, “These unlawful practices include zoning laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any sufficient justification.”

But the dissenting justices say that Thursday’s ruling creates a legal liability that wasn’t intended in the original 1968 law.

The ruling brings clarity to an issue that had lingered in doubt: Are plaintiffs in housing discrimination cases required to prove an intent to discriminate? Or is it enough for them to show that some practices have an outsized negative effect on minorities?

Two previous high-profile cases had been settled, as neither side was willing to risk a defeat in the Supreme Court.

The court decided the case 5-4; Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Samuel Alito, whose opinion was joined by Thomas, Chief John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.

“By any measure, the Court today makes a serious mistake,” Alito wrote in his dissent, in which he said the majority opinion went too far in applying the Fair Housing law. Alito said Congress intended to cover disparate treatment — not claims of disparate impact.

Adopted in 1968, the Fair Housing Act says that it is illegal to “refuse to sell or rent… or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.”

He wrote, “The Court acknowledges the risk that disparate impact may be used to ‘perpetuate race-based considerations rather than move beyond them.'”

In a shorter dissent, Thomas said the foundation of the majority’s ruling “is made of sand.”

Thomas said that the court’s 1971 ruling in the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case, which had authorized disparate impact claims, represented “the triumph of an agency’s preferences over Congress’ enactment and of assumption over fact.”

The Fair Housing Act — and the deep correlations between housing and poverty in America — was put under new focus back in 2013, when journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones dove into the issue for ProPublica, as part of a series titled Segregation Now.

Hannah-Jones’ work was the focus of an episode of This American Life — and when she spoke to NPR’s Gene Demby about the Fair Housing Act shortly afterward, she said:

“I knew housing discrimination was illegal, but that’s about it. So, many things surprised me along the way, but two facts surprised me most. One, it was kind of unbelievable how egregiously little the governments — federal on down — have done to enforce this landmark civil rights law. I discovered governments have largely spent the last 45 years going about their business as if this law didn’t exist, and in fact, were often taking actions that came out on the wrong side of the law. Two, I was literally taken aback by the fact that this law not only called for an end to housing discrimination, but that it mandated that the federal government wield its considerable powers to take affirmative steps to break down that housing segregation it created.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims


Supreme Court upholds a key tool fighting discrimination in the housing market

By Emily Badger June 25

AFP PHOTO / KAREN BLEIER / FILESKAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images

Civil rights groups and the Obama administration won a major victory Thursday as the Supreme Court upheld a tool that advocates argue is essential to fighting housing discrimination and patterns of segregation that have persisted in America for decades.

In the 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that the 1968 Fair Housing Act prevents more than just intentional discrimination in the housing market. The court said the law can also prohibit seemingly race-neutral policies that have the effect of disproportionately harming minorities and other protected groups, even if there is no overt evidence of bias behind them.

“The Court acknowledges,” Kennedy wrote, “the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.”

He cautioned, though, that “disparate impact” claims don’t simply arise any time statistical disparities appear along racial lines in housing. It must be clear that housing policies caused that disparity, and that those policies don’t serve another valid goal.

The decision upholds a legal strategy that civil rights groups and the federal government have used for four decades to fight lending practices, local housing policies and zoning laws that have had the effect of limiting housing options available to minorities. Lower courts have repeatedly agreed that the Fair Housing Act allows such “disparate impact” claims, but the Supreme Court had not weighed in on the question until now.

As overt racial discrimination has receded from the housing market, civil rights lawyers and housing advocates have argued that “disparate impact” claims are vital to dismantling policies and practices that sound like they have little to do with race at all, such as zoning laws that bar multi-family apartment construction in wealthier white suburbs. If the Supreme Court had ruled that such claims couldn’t be made under the Fair Housing Act, civil rights groups argued that the landmark civil rights law would have lost much of its power.

“This really is the most we possibly could have hoped for,” said Betsy Julian, the president of the Inclusive Communities Project, the Texas nonprofit that brought the case. “We’re thrilled that ‘disparate impact’ as a principle was upheld. We’re also particularly gratified that the court appreciated that we are not a post-racial society when it comes to housing and that we have a ways to go.”

The ruling is a defeat for banks and developers who countered that the fear of disparate impact lawsuits might discourage them from trying to build affordable housing. Critics have also argued that “disparate impact” claims unfairly impugn the motives of banks, communities and developers who never intended to discriminate.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned that the court “makes a serious mistake” in giving meaning to the Fair Housing Act that Congress never intended when it passed the law.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by the Inclusive Communities Project against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs over how it distributes tax credits for low-income housing. ICP argued that the state’s formula effectively ensured that low-income housing was primarily built in poor, minority neighborhoods, and seldom placed in white suburban ones. As a result, poorer, minority families in need of affordable housing had little option but to live in impoverished communities without access to good schools, jobs or opportunity.

“This is going to open up this issue all over the country,” said Myron Orfield, a law professor at the University of Minnesota. “The things that are happening in Texas are happening in every city in the Untied 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 the Texas case was winding its way through the courts, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is charged with enforcing the Fair Housing Act, issued a rule in 2013 explicitly interpreting the law to cover disparate impact claims. HUD Secretary Julian Castro in a statement Thursday called the ruling “another important step in the long march toward fulfilling one of our nation’s founding ideals: equal opportunity for all Americans.”

The White House, in a separate statement, said the decision “reflects the reality that discrimination often operates not just out in the open, but in more hidden forms,” such as predatory lending and exclusionary zoning.

The decision was expected to be a close one. The Supreme Court had twice previously tried to take up “disparate impact” cases to resolve the question, despite the agreement among lower courts. But both earlier cases settled before they reached the high court, to the relief of civil rights groups and administration officials who feared conservative justices were searching for a case to weaken the law.

The court’s four liberals sided in the case with Kennedy, while Alito was joined in his dissent by Antonin Scalia and John G. Roberts Jr. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate dissent.

In his rebuttal, Thomas wrote that racial imbalances don’t always disfavor minorities, pointing to instances in which minorities have dominated certain industries.

“And in our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black,” Thomas wrote. “To presume that these and all other measurable disparities are products of racial discrimination is to ignore the complexities of human existence.”

The case is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
Emily Badger is a reporter for Wonkblog covering urban policy. She was previously a staff writer at The Atlantic Cities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-a-key-tool-fighting-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/


The Supreme Court’s Website now features an “Advanced Search” tool, which allows targeted searches of Website content. You can view the tool at this link and in the upper right-hand corner of the main page. The tool allows a user to select from among 12 fields to restrict any search, which will produce more accurate search outcomes.

The “Advanced Search” tool supplements the “All Documents” search tool, which continues to be available on the main page. If no checkboxes are selected in the “Advanced Search” tool, the search will return items from the “All Documents” search at the top right. Conversely, if all the checkboxes are selected, the search would return only documents within the 12 fields.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

%d bloggers like this: