SCOTUS: You Can Be Guilty of Housing Discrimination Even If You Don’t Know It



The Obamacare decision yesterday drowned out a dangerous ruling that will institutionalize “disparate impact’ in housing and will make liable innocent people who unintentionally appear to discriminate.

The three rulings, the two yesterday and the ruling today all came about because the Supreme Court has taken on the role of judicial activists. They are writing law from the bench.

In a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday, in the case of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, SCOTUS determined that anyone can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not anyone in the organization intended to discriminate.

Fairness has gone over the line and there is nothing fair about this decision.

Justice Kennedy sided with the left court and said that you could be liable because you might have been influenced by “unconscionable prejudice” or “stereotyping” when you lent money or rented apartments or carried on appraisal or brokerage or planning functions.

Doesn’t it sound a little like the Thought Police?

The FHA is being expanded beyond what Congress intended and as Justice Thomas put it, it is a ‘nod to federalism.’ The FHA can now authorize disparate-impact claims which is beyond what Congress ever intended them to do.

The Court in essence institutionalized the principle of “disparate impact.” It appears that outcome – effect – not intent is the guiding principle.

Justice Thomas said, “We should not automatically presume that any institution with a neutral practice that happens to produce a racial disparity is guilty of discrimination until proved innocent.”

But that is what they did.

“‘In the dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that “Treating someone ‘less favorably than others because of a protected trait’, is ‘the most easily understood type of discrimination’…Indeed, this classic form of discrimination—called disparate treatment—is the only one prohibited by the Constitution itself.'”

The original housing act had nothing to do with disparate impact. It only banned decisions provably made because of race.

The lawyers will love this new enormous liability. It puts landlords, builders and others in danger of being sued without any evidence of discrimination.

This works well with our fundamental transformation into a Big Government apparatus where even our living arrangements will be organized by the government.

Disparate impact is a social justice concept. In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate “adverse impact” on persons in a protected class.

The federal government’s new housing rule will use grant money to push for affordable housing in affluent areas while also using tax money to upgrade poorer areas that are suffering from crime and gangs.

The administration’s housing rule has the laudable goal of ending housing segregation for races, the poor and other protected classes, but they get there by fiat and redistribution.

The fear is that the federal government will force an unnatural housing situation throughout the country by withholding federal funds, new zoning laws, lawsuits and accusations of racism.

The government is actively engaged in social engineering, something they have done before. In the middle of the last century, they passed ‘separate but equal’ laws which ended up causing segregation in areas where there had been integration.

The Supreme Court, for their part, has become a vehicle for the Big Government agenda.


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

Cartoon via Antonio Branco at Net Right Daily