Archive: 22 May 2013
Solicitor General Urges Supreme Court to Reject Mt. Holly Case; Argues No Review Is Needed as to Whether the Fair Housing Act Recognizes Disparate Impact Claims
Fair Lending/Anti-Discrimination, Litigation & Enforcement Actions, Mortgage Lending, Mortgage Servicing, Other Federal Agencies & GSEs
Tagged with Department of Housing and Urban Development, disparate impact, Fair Housing Act, HUD Rule, Mount Holly, Mt. Holly, Solicitor General, Supreme Court
By: Andrew C. Glass, Roger L. Smerage
In an increasingly complex battle among the branches of the federal government, the Solicitor General recently urged the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in the appeal titled Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507. The Mt. Holly matter seeks review of whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate impact theory of discrimination and if so, how courts are to analyze such claims. A disparate impact theory imposes liability on defendants for actions that are undertaken without discriminatory intent but that nonetheless have a disproportionately harmful effect on particular groups of individuals. The Supreme Court had previously granted certiorari to review these same questions in the appeal titled Magner v. Gallagher, No. 10-1032, which appeal the defendants subsequently withdrew under circumstances garnering review by Congress.