HUD Signals Intent to Reconsider Disparate Impact Rule

Dr. Ben Carson, HUD Secretary, Attempts to Weaken Fair Housing Enforcement

The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that HUD ( The U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) announced its intent to reconsider its February 15, 2013 Disparate Impact regulation that affects fair housing.

This signals a third attempt by HUD under Secretary Ben Carson to weaken its fair housing enforcement. In a media release on May 10, 2018, HUD indicated that it will formally seek public comment on whether the regulation is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities.

HUD’s first action against fair housing during this administration was its attempt to suspend the final rule implementing Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs), after which the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction on December 23, 2018 in response to a suit filed by fair housing organizations.

As a result of the injunction, HUD was forced to implement the SAFMR rule. HUD’s second action against fair housing came on January 5, 2018, when the department in essence suspended the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule. This week, three advocacy organizations filed suit against HUD for its suspension of the AFFH.

HUD’s media release acknowledges that the Supreme Court upheld the use of disparate impact theory to establish liability under the Fair Housing Act in cases where seemingly neutral practices have a discriminatory impact on protected classes of persons. HUD goes on to state that the Court “did not directly rule upon it,” hence HUD wants public input whether the regulation is consistent with the Court’s ruling in Texas v. Inclusive Communities.

For many years HUD interpreted the Fair Housing Act to prohibit housing practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if there was no intent to discriminate. Eleven courts of appeals agreed. There were minor variations, however, in how the courts and HUD applied the discriminatory effects concept. Therefore, the February 15, 2013 regulation was issued to establish uniform standards for determining when a housing practice with a discriminatory effect violates the Fair Housing Act.

The final rule standardized a three-step “burden-shifting” approach that HUD has used and that a majority of appeals courts have applied.

  1. First, the party complaining that there is a discriminatory effect has the burden of proving that a practice caused, or predictably will cause, a discriminatory effect.
  2. Second, if the complaining party makes a convincing argument, then the burden of proof shifts to the defending party, which must show that the practice has a “legally sufficient justification,” meaning it is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest that cannot be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
  3. Third, if the defending party is successful, the complaining party can still succeed by demonstrating that the defending party’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.

On May 16, Monarch Housing Associates in partnership with Seton Hall University Law School, the Anti-Poverty Network of NJ, NJ Institute for Social Justice presented a Public Policy Forum on The Color of Law. The Forum provided an opportunity to discuss how we can all work together to advance fair housing in New Jersey.

Carson’s God-and-bootstraps message fails to hearten housing advocates

Follow us on Apple News

Subscribe to Our Newsletter for News You Can Use Everyday

Subscribe to Our Weekly Newsletter Delivered on Friday