Supreme Court upholds housing discrimination law

WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court delivered an unexpected reprieve to civil rights groups Thursday, ruling that housing discrimination need not be intentional in order to be illegal.

The justices said people objecting to lending, zoning, sales and rental practices can base their legal claim on the disparate impact those practices have on blacks or other minorities.

The court's 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was an unlikely conclusion to a years-long effort by opponents of the civil rights-era law to reduce its effectiveness against housing policies and practices used by many builders, lenders and insurers. Twice before, the justices had agreed to hear a challenge to the law, only to see the cases withdrawn or settled before reaching court.

"The court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act's continuing role in moving the nation toward a more integrated society," Kennedy wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion joined by the court's other conservatives, accused his colleagues of "a serious mistake," which he said "will have unfortunate consequences for local government, private enterprise, and those living in poverty."

The use of disparate impact is one of the Fair Housing Act's key enforcement tools. It prohibits exclusion on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or family status, unless it's for an otherwise legitimate reason.

Kennedy stressed from the bench that the court was not ruling out such legitimate government policies when enacted by municipal housing authorities or private developers.

"Courts should avoid interpreting disparate-impact liability to be so expansive as to inject racial considerations into every housing decision," he wrote.

The ruling was heralded by civil rights groups, which had feared the court's conservative justices intended to change the standard.

"At a time of heightened concern across the country over threats to racial justice, as seen in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, a fully functioning and effective Fair Housing Act is more important than ever," said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest said the decision will help "victims of more subtle forms of discrimination, such as predatory lending, exclusionary zoning, and development policies that limit affordable housing."

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has scaled back other civil rights laws, most notably the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013, Roberts wrote the 5-4 decision striking down a key section of the law, which had required states and localities with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before making changes in their voting practices.

The court in recent years also has whittled away at the use of racial preferences by public universities. But this year, it upheld objections to a state redistricting plan raised by black lawmakers in Alabama.

The difference between intent and impact is at the root of many civil rights laws, from education and employment to disability and voting rights. In most cases, showing that minorities are disproportionately affected is enough.

But while the court has ruled that some employment and age discrimination laws protect against disparate impact, those words were not included in the Fair Housing Act, passed in the wake of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. That left opponents hopeful the justices would limit violations to those shown to be intentionally discriminatory.

The nation's lending industry had argued that the law was misused for decades to penalize practices that had a disparate effect on minority groups, even if unintentional. Facing lawsuits based on the statistical results of their policies, they often were forced to settle lawsuits at considerable expense.

The specific facts of the case -- Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project -- were considered less important than the potential nationwide impact of the court's decision.

The Texas case involved a decision by Dallas officials to make most federal low-income housing vouchers available in poor, minority neighborhoods rather than majority-white suburbs. In his ruling, Kennedy said, "Race may be considered in certain circumstances and in the proper fashion."