US Supreme Court to rule on housing discrimination law
Judges will consider whether people suing over racial discrimination need to prove intent
The United States Supreme Court agreed to decide whether people suing for housing discrimination must prove they were victims of intentional bias, in a case that may give long-sought protection to the lending industry.
The justices said they would hear an appeal from Texas officials sued under the Fair Housing Act over tax credits for low-income building projects.
The question is whether people can sue by showing a practice had a "disparate impact" on racial minorities, or whether they must meet a higher standard by proving intentional bias.
The court will consider jettisoning the disparate-impact theory, which has helped the administration of President Barack Obama get hundreds of millions of dollars in fair-lending settlements with Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo and other financial companies.
"The far-reaching scope of disparate-impact liability makes this a question of exceptional importance," Texas officials led by attorney general Greg Abbott argued in their appeal.
The court has twice before granted review on the issue, only to have settlements scuttle the case. Obama's administration and civil rights advocates have sought to steer the issue away from the Supreme Court.
In other contexts, the court under Chief Justice John Roberts has cut back legal protection for racial minorities.
Texas is fighting a lawsuit by the Inclusive Communities Project, a Dallas-based group that advocates for racially integrated housing.
The organisation accuses Texas of allocating a disproportionate number of federal low- income-housing tax credits to minority neighbourhoods.
"That practice makes dwellings unavailable in particular areas, thereby perpetuating residential segregation in the Dallas area," the group said in court papers.
Disparate-impact claims focus on the effect of a disputed policy without requiring evidence of intent. The question for the Supreme Court is whether the Fair Housing Act authorises those suits.
Although the Supreme Court has allowed disparate-impact claims under other federal discrimination statutes, Texas says the wording of the Fair Housing Act is different in crucial respects.
A ruling in favour of Texas would change the scope of the law across the country.
The federal appeals court that ruled in the Texas case is one of 11 that have decided the issue, and all have said the Fair Housing Act allowed disparate-impact claims.
The case could also affect the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the law used by the administration against Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has relied on the disparate-impact doctrine in enforcing that law, which contains language similar to that in the Fair Housing Act.
ECOA, as the law is known, covers vehicles loans as well as mortgage loans.
Lenders say the disparate- impact approach puts them in a difficult, if not impossible, situation.
They say factors that indicate an ability to repay a loan - like income - often correlate with race.
The threat of disparate-impact liability means lenders must pay close attention to racial outcomes of even nondiscriminatory policies, says Paul Hancock, a lawyer who filed a brief backing Texas on behalf of business groups led by the American Bankers Association.
"It really pushes more towards advancement of racial quotas as the only way to avoid legal claims," Hancock said.
In agreeing to take up the case, the justices said they would consider only whether the Fair Housing Act allowed disparate-impact claims, and not what standards applied if those claims did go forward.
Texas had sought review on both questions.
The court will consider the case in the first half of next year.