Buries Along Side Of Yesterday’s Supreme Court Ruling On Healthcare,

Was another court decision about housing discrimination…

Supreme Court upholds housing discrimination law
USA Today
By Richard Wolf and Brad Heath
June 25, 2015

WASHINGTON -- A deeply divided Supreme Court delivered an unexpected reprieve to civil rights groups on Thursday, ruling that housing discrimination need not be intentional in order to be illegal.

The justices said people objecting to lending, zoning, sales and rental practices only need to show that they had a disparate impact on blacks or other minorities under a federal fair-housing law.

The court's 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was an unlikely conclusion to a years-long effort by opponents of the civil rights-era law to reduce its effectiveness against housing policies and practices used by many builders, lenders and insurers. Twice before, the justices had agreed to hear a challenge to the law, only to see the cases withdrawn or settled before reaching court.

"The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act's continuing role in moving the nation toward a more integrated society," Kennedy wrote. 

Why is this important to us?

Because HUD has ruled that we are covered under the Fair Housing Act and the article goes on to say,

The difference between intent and impact is at the root of many civil rights laws, from education and employment to disability and voting rights. In most cases, showing that minorities are disproportionately affected is enough.

But while the court has ruled that some employment and age discrimination laws protect against disparate impact, those words were not included in the Fair Housing Act, passed in the wake of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. That left opponents hopeful the justices would limit violations to those shown to be intentionally discriminatory.

So this means that the discrimination doesn’t have to be overt. Supposed you rented an apartment before you changed your name and now you are paying your rent in your new name, this ruling might prevent your landlord from claiming you are violating your lease because their policy is that the rent must be paid by the lease holder.