Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

Court rejects Obama housing bias rule as 'wishful thinking'

Published 11/03/2014, 04:56 PM
Updated 11/03/2014, 05:00 PM
© Reuters Obama campaigns for Democratic candidates at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday threw out a housing regulation issued by President Barack Obama's administration that said racial bias claims can be based on seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the Fair Housing Act allows for only direct discrimination claims and not those based on so-called disparate impact allegations. Leon wrote that the administration's view that the language of the Fair Housing Act assumes that disparate impact claims are permitted "appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking on steroids."

The ruling was a win for the American Insurance Association and other business groups that oppose disparate impact claims, which allow for a broad range of business decisions related to housing to be subject to civil rights litigation.

As an example of such a claim, the National Fair Housing Alliance sued Allstate Corp in 2012 for refusing to insure flat-roofed houses in Delaware, claiming the practice had a discriminatory effect on poor minorities most likely to live in such buildings.

The immediate impact of Leon's decision is limited as the U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would take up a related case and is likely to decide by the end of June once and for all whether the Fair Housing Act allows for disparate impact lawsuits.

The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968, does not specifically allow disparate impact claims but courts have permitted lawsuits making such allegations for decades. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

In recent years, the high court has twice agreed to hear a disparate impact case but both times the dispute was settled before the justices could rule.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the rule in 2013 to codify the administration's position that disparate impact claims should be allowed. The move came after it became clear the Supreme Court was likely to rule on the issue.

The case is American Insurance Association v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 13-00966.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.