Supreme Court on King vs Burwell & housing discrimination.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Breaking News :

The opinion in Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities is here.
The opinion in King v. Burwell is here.

Both held.  ACA 6-3 and Texas 5-4 I think.

www.scotusblog.com/

5 cases left.

[haapai]

It's shaping up as a surprisingly good day for the left. 

The Texas Housing decision was unexpected.  I'll have to see how narrow it is. 

[The Captain]

Can someone summarize for me what the issue was?  I'm not familiar with it...

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 25, 2015 9:41:20 GMT -5 haapai said:

It's shaping up as a surprisingly good day for the left. 

The Texas Housing decision was unexpected.  I'll have to see how narrow it is. 

Yeah, I saw something yesterday on the (then) 7 cases left and the writer assumed that the author would be Kennedy and it would be struck down.  They assumed authorship based on who'd written what from the period the case was originally argued and Kennedy was the only one without a majority authorship.  So they assumed it would be struck down. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 25, 2015 10:00:55 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Can someone summarize for me what the issue was?  I'm not familiar with it...

The oldest case on the Court’s docket is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. The issue in this case is whether you can bring a lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination “because of” race, by claiming that a law or policy has a “disparate impact” – that is, it has a discriminatory effect, even if it wasn’t motivated by an intent to discriminate. This question has been before the Court in two earlier cases, but both of those cases settled before the Court could weigh in. The settlements weren’t a coincidence: civil rights groups and the federal government were worried that the conservatives on the Roberts Court would hold that the FHA does not allow disparate-impact lawsuits. Such a result, they were concerned, would in turn make it much harder to prevail in cases alleging housing discrimination, because lawmakers and landlords almost never come right out and admit that they intended to discriminate.

The Fair Housing Act case was argued in January. Because the Justices make a strong effort to distribute the opinion-writing workload evenly not just over the course of the year, but also from month to month, we can sometimes predict who will write an opinion based on who has (or has not) written opinions in a particular month. This is one such case: Justice Anthony Kennedy is the only Justice who has not yet had a majority opinion from January, so he seems like a good bet to be writing on behalf of the majority. Justice Kennedy is one of the Justices who has been most likely to join the Court’s four more liberal Justices in closely divided cases, but on the other hand he has been skeptical about the use of affirmative action in college admissions, so both sides are likely to be nervous until they actually hear the result.

earlier this week there was this www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/and-then-there-were-seven-the-remaining-cases-in-plain-english/

ETA -  The actual decision for the Texas case is at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf   I'm assuming The Captain was asking about the Texas case and not King vs Burwell...

[haapai]

Sadly, I can't summarize the ruling for you. 

As WB says above, it was expected that Kennedy would write the opinion but nobody wanted to predict what he'd write or who else would be joining him.  A lot of people were steeling themselves for a 5-4 opinion written by Kennedy with Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts joining him.  That's not what happened.   

[haapai]

Here's one early take on the majority opinion in Texas....  It's also lifted directly from scotusblog. 

Among the limits the majority opinion placed on Disparate Impact, "statistical disparity" alone isn't enough. Disparate impact is often about how large demographic groups are effected by a policy whether or not the group's members are directly mistreated consumers (but of course it's also possible that there's far from a general understanding on where "impact" picks up from disparate "treatment"), so it's hard to know how we'd untangle pre-existing demographic realities from the impact of our policies, aside from statistical disparities. Could get very hairy. Perhaps Kennedy just allowed disparate impact in theory only. - See more at: live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_25_2015#sthash.LryYL0KS.dpuf

Clear as mud, ain't it? 

[Wisconsin Beth]

from Slate  www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/25/fair_housing_act_challenge_supreme_court_saves_the_law.html

Kennedy explained that Congress’s amendments to the FHA seem to recognize the fact that the law prohibits disparate impact discrimination—and that every federal circuit court to consider the issue has held likewise. He also explained that the law, as currently interpreted, has worked:

Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 and against the backdrop of disparate-impact liability in nearly every jurisdiction, many cities have become more diverse. The FHA must play an important part in avoiding the Kerner Commission’s grim prophecy that “[o]ur Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote blistering dissents. Alito accused the majority of mangling the law out of its “desire to eliminate the ‘vestiges’ of ‘residential segregation by race,’ ” thereby “privileging purpose over text.” He argued that the FHA should only prohibit “disparate treatment” discrimination—basically, outright racism. Any discrimination more subtle, Alito suggested, can’t be litigated under the FHA[/i]


I may have lifted too much of the content.  IF that's the case, Mods should feel free to trim.  But it's still clear as mud to me. 

Editing to try to get the strike through out. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Also, Mods, I'm aware of a thread with a rough title of ACA Deathwatch it's a matter of time. 

IF you need/want to merge this into that thread, I have no issue with that.  I've not read the thread but assume those on it are also talking about the King vs Burwell decision today. 

[chiver78]

nah, you're fine. this thread is covering the decisions in Current Events and taking a factual approach to it. the other is in Politics, and well....yeah.

just keep it factual, and we can leave it here. thanks!
-chiver mod

[The Captain]

I'm actually trying to understand this because I think it has a bearing on an issue we're dealing with in my new town.

We have an organization trying to get approval and tax credits to put in high density low income "working class" rental housing.  One of the arguments the developer is supposedly presenting is that the city's permitting process is against the Fair Housing Act because it is inherently discriminatory against minorities.

Umm, no - and to be honest - I find that argument to be race baiting, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial. 

There is rental stock available in the area.  There are homes available in the area.  There are new homes being built in the area. I've seen the permit application - there is nowhere on it where it asks for the race of the person applying.

I think this decision supports my position but I'm not sure.  I need to read the concurring and dissenting opinion to understand the issues better.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2015 11:35:50 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

from Slate  www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/25/fair_housing_act_challenge_supreme_court_saves_the_law.html

Kennedy explained that Congress’s amendments to the FHA seem to recognize the fact that the law prohibits disparate impact discrimination—and that every federal circuit court to consider the issue has held likewise. He also explained that the law, as currently interpreted, has worked:

Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 and against the backdrop of disparate-impact liability in nearly every jurisdiction, many cities have become more diverse. The FHA must play an important part in avoiding the Kerner Commission’s grim prophecy that “[o]ur Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote blistering dissents. Alito accused the majority of mangling the law out of its “desire to eliminate the ‘vestiges’ of ‘residential segregation by race,’ ” thereby “privileging purpose over text.” He argued that the FHA should only prohibit “disparate treatment” discrimination—basically, outright racism. Any discrimination more subtle, Alito suggested, can’t be litigated under the FHA

i think the idea is that you can use the FHA to prosecute discrimination cases even when discrimination was not the objective.  in other words, if the policy results in discrimination IN PRACTICE, it can be struck down using the FHA.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 25, 2015 14:12:19 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm actually trying to understand this because I think it has a bearing on an issue we're dealing with in my new town.

We have an organization trying to get approval and tax credits to put in high density low income "working class" rental housing.  One of the arguments the developer is supposedly presenting is that the city's permitting process is against the Fair Housing Act because it is inherently discriminatory against minorities.

Umm, no - and to be honest - I find that argument to be race baiting, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial. 

There is rental stock available in the area.  There are homes available in the area.  There are new homes being built in the area. I've seen the permit application - there is nowhere on it where it asks for the race of the person applying.

I think this decision supports my position but I'm not sure.  I need to read the concurring and dissenting opinion to understand the issues better.

As I understand this (and it's a VERY superficial overview), if all the housing stock built with approval and tax credits and whatall from FHA is located in the same area, it CAN be considered segregation because it's all in the same area, forcing the people who use it to stay in that area with no chance of affording a rental in a better neighbor.  As I said, extremely simplistic overview. 

[The Captain]

Jun 25, 2015 15:16:58 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jun 25, 2015 14:12:19 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm actually trying to understand this because I think it has a bearing on an issue we're dealing with in my new town.

We have an organization trying to get approval and tax credits to put in high density low income "working class" rental housing.  One of the arguments the developer is supposedly presenting is that the city's permitting process is against the Fair Housing Act because it is inherently discriminatory against minorities.

Umm, no - and to be honest - I find that argument to be race baiting, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial. 

There is rental stock available in the area.  There are homes available in the area.  There are new homes being built in the area. I've seen the permit application - there is nowhere on it where it asks for the race of the person applying.

I think this decision supports my position but I'm not sure.  I need to read the concurring and dissenting opinion to understand the issues better.

As I understand this (and it's a VERY superficial overview), if all the housing stock built with approval and tax credits and whatall from FHA is located in the same area, it CAN be considered segregation because it's all in the same area, forcing the people who use it to stay in that area with no chance of affording a rental in a better neighbor.  As I said, extremely simplistic overview. 

Yep, I'm starting to get this (I think). The thing is, the housing credits they're citing in the case are the Federal low income housing tax credits. The developer wants the CITY to grant them tax free status for 6 years, and a reduced rate for another 8 years (in other word - no property taxes to be paid on this development).

I don't think the developer can force a city to grant tax breaks to make a development economically viable for at least the short term, but I'm by no means an expert in this area.

I think this is a poor decision that could have many far reaching impacts.  Since minorities tend to have lower credit scores does that mean banks can no longer use that as a criteria for granting loans?

I can't wait to read both opinions.