MHANY Management v. County of Nassau

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016 · Property

819 F.3d 581 (2016)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyFair Housing ActZoningHousing discriminationaffordable housingracial discriminationdisparate treatmentdisparate impact

Facts

Nassau County sought to sell the Social Services Site in Garden City and asked Garden City to rezone it from public use. After extensive study, Garden City's planner repeatedly recommended R-M zoning, which would have permitted multifamily housing, but after public opposition focused on preserving Garden City's character and fears about affordable housing, the Village abruptly changed course and adopted R-T zoning, which largely eliminated multifamily development. Plaintiffs claimed that this shift made affordable housing infeasible and disproportionately excluded minority residents from a village with a very small minority population and no affordable housing. Plaintiffs also alleged Nassau County approved the zoning shift and separately steered affordable housing to lower-income, majority-minority communities.

Issue

Whether Plaintiffs had standing and whether the case was moot; whether Garden City's shift from R-M to R-T zoning violated the Fair Housing Act and related equal-protection-based claims as intentional discrimination; whether the district court used the correct disparate-impact framework; and whether summary judgment for Nassau County was proper.

Rule

Under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff may establish intentional discrimination in zoning by showing that animus against a protected group was a significant factor in the position taken by municipal decisionmakers themselves or by those to whom the decisionmakers were knowingly responsive, using the Arlington Heights circumstantial factors. FHA standing does not require certainty that the housing project would succeed; a realistic opportunity to proceed is enough. A defendant asserting mootness by changed conduct bears the formidable burden of showing it is absolutely clear the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. For FHA disparate-impact claims, 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c) governs: after a prima facie case and a defendant's showing of a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest, the plaintiff must prove that another practice with less discriminatory effect could serve that interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A nonprofit housing developer in Columbus, Ohio prepared a proposal to buy a city-owned parcel if the city kept a planned multifamily zoning designation. After the city instead adopted a townhouse-only zone, the developer sued under the Fair Housing Act. At trial, the developer showed that under the original zoning it could have submitted a bid only 1% lower than the winning market-rate bid, but it had no signed option contract on the land.

Does the developer have Article III standing?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, FHA standing is coextensive with Article III, and a housing plaintiff need not prove with certainty that the project would succeed. A realistic opportunity to proceed is enough. The court emphasized that plaintiffs need not have a present contractual interest in the property and that directly competitive bidding can make injury traceable and redressable because removing the challenged barrier would tangibly improve the plaintiff's chances.