11 AGs File Brief to Protect Against Discriminatory Housing Practices – NMP 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
Closing Costs: What HUD’s Proposed Rule Will Really Do To The Market

HUD’s proposed rollback of housing protections could deepen barriers for underserved borrowers, shrink the pool of prospective homebuyers, and ultimately cost loan originators business

Aug 27, 2026
MISMO Gives Lenders A New Test For Mortgage AI Vendors

Two certifications move the industry’s FRAME initiative from governance guidance toward product-level validation and implementation

Aug 27, 2026
One Owner, Two GSEs: Would Fannie And Freddie Still Compete?

Oksenholt Capital says shared infrastructure could lower costs without weakening competition, but mortgage bankers have warned that common ownership could reduce lender choice, innovation, and market resilience

Aug 27, 2026
MaxClass: Education Meets Lead Generation

CEO Kelly Hendricks details how MaxClass and HomeQB are opening a new referral channel for originators

Fannie Mae Returns To Distressed-Loan Market With $214 Million Sale

The agency’s first nonperforming-loan offering in 13 months transfers 969 deeply delinquent mortgages to private buyers, including a small pool concentrated in Dallas-Fort Worth

Aug 20, 2026
Brief Refinance Shift Tests Mortgage Lenders’ Compliance Controls

Critical defect rate jumps 23.9% as math-based compliance findings expose the potential for one systemic error to affect loans across a lender’s book