Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2015 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFair Housing ActDisparate ImpactFair Housing ActFHAdisparate impactresults-oriented languageotherwise make unavailable

Facts

The Inclusive Communities Project relied on two Fair Housing Act provisions, §§804(a) and 805(a), to challenge housing decisions on a disparate-impact theory. The dispute involved a state housing authority's allocation of low-income housing tax credits, and the Court described the claim as a novel effort to second-guess which of two reasonable allocation approaches the authority should follow. The Court emphasized that the case implicated governmental discretion in allocating tax credits for low-income housing. The opinion focused on whether the FHA authorizes disparate-impact liability at all and what limits must cabin such claims.

Issue

Whether the Fair Housing Act, properly interpreted, prohibits housing decisions that have a disparate impact even absent proof of discriminatory intent. If so, what limitations must apply to avoid overexpansion of disparate-impact liability.

Rule

Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act because its results-oriented language, especially the phrase "otherwise make unavailable," looks to consequences as well as intent. But liability is limited: a plaintiff must identify a specific policy causing the disparity, satisfy a robust causality requirement, and cannot prevail if the defendant shows the challenged policy is necessary to achieve a valid interest unless the plaintiff shows an available alternative practice with less disparate impact that serves the defendant's legitimate needs. Remedies must focus on eliminating the offending practice and should, where possible, use race-neutral means rather than racial targets or quotas.

🔒

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.

In Cleveland, Ohio, a neighborhood group sues Lakeshore Municipal Housing Board under the Fair Housing Act after census data show that subsidized apartments are concentrated in predominantly minority neighborhoods. The complaint alleges that the concentration has worsened racial isolation, but it does not identify any board rule, scoring criterion, or practice that produced that pattern.

How should a court most likely rule on the prima facie disparate-impact claim?

Explanation. The Fair Housing Act permits disparate-impact claims, but the majority required important safeguards. A plaintiff must identify a specific policy or policies causing the disparity; statistics showing racial imbalance alone are insufficient. The Court emphasized a robust causality requirement so defendants are not held liable for disparities they did not create.