Skip to main content

11 AGs File Brief to Protect Against Discriminatory Housing Practices

Jan 31, 2012

Eleven U.S. state attorneys general have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court in Magner v. Gallagher to rule that federal anti-discrimination law can be enforced in cases where a housing or mortgage policy appears neutral on its surface but has a discriminatory effect. The 11 AGs include Thomas C. Horne of Arizona, Kamala D. Harris of California, George Jepsen of Connecticut, David M. Louie of Hawaii, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, Michael DeWine of Ohio, John R. Kroger of Oregon, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, and Darrell V. Mcgraw Jr. of West Virginia. "Segregation in housing and barriers to equal opportunity remain a great concern for communities throughout the country," said the amicus brief dated Jan. 30, 2012. "Disparate impact causes of action are needed to respond to contemporary forms of bias and to eliminate practices and policies that perpetuate segregated housing patterns." Magner v. Gallagher involves a policy of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota to remedy "problem properties" by targeting low-income renter-occupied properties for housing code violations, condemnations and evictions. In 2004 and 2005, a group of current and former owners of rental properties challenged the city's policy, contending that these practices had a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities and, in particular, African-Americans. African-Americans made up 60 to 70 percent of the city's low-income renters, while they made up approximately 12 percent of the population of St. Paul, Minn. "For more than four decades, the Fair Housing Act has been a key tool for rooting out discrimination in housing and residential financing," said California AG Harris. "Minority homeowners and renters in California, who have been disproportionately impacted by the housing and mortgage crisis, deserve access to housing without facing discrimination and other deceptive practices." The plaintiffs challenged the city's policy in federal court under the Fair Housing Act, which is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that housing policies that disproportionately impact protected groups violate the Fair Housing Act and are subject to disparate-impact scrutiny. The City appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in February 2012.  
About the author
Published
Jan 31, 2012
In Wake Of NAR Settlement, Dual Licensing Carries RESPA, Steering Risks

With the NAR settlement pending approval, lenders hot to hire buyers' agents ought to closely consider all the risks.

A California CRA Law Undercuts Itself

Who pays when compliance costs increase? Borrowers.

CFPB Weighs Title Insurance Changes

The agency considers a proposal that would prevent home lenders from passing on title insurance costs to home buyers.

Fannie Mae Weeds Out "Prohibited or Subjective" Appraisal Language

The overall occurrence rate for these violations has gone down, Fannie Mae reports.

Arizona Bans NTRAPS, Following Other States

ALTA on a war path to ban the "predatory practice of filing unfair real estate fee agreements in property records."

Kentucky Legislature Passes Bill Banning NTRAPS

The new law prohibits the recording of NTRAPS in property records, creates penalties if NTRAPS are recorded, and provides for the removal of NTRAPS currently in place.