Now is the time to get rid of the slums and ghettos of Chicago. Now is the time to make justice a reality all over this nation. Now is the time.
The enactment of the Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968, came only after a long and difficult journey. American society was afflicted with cradle-to-grave segregation. Even after the Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the nation was deeply divided, with housing segregation and discrimination still deeply embedded therein. Additionally, the growing casualties from the war in Vietnam embittered and enraged Americans. The deaths in Vietnam fell heaviest upon young and poor infantrymen of color. On the home front, these men's families could not purchase or rent homes in certain residential developments on account of their race or national origin.
Since the 1966 open housing marches in Chicago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s name was closely linked with fair housing legislation. From 1966-1967, Congress regularly considered a national fair housing bill but failed to garner majority support for its passage. Senators Edward Brooke and Edward Kennedy argued deeply for the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator Brooke, the first African-American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, spoke personally of his return from World War II and his inability to provide a home of his choice for his new family because of his race.
Things changed following the assignment of Dr. King on April 4, 1968. President Lyndon B. Johnson leveraged this national tragedy to demand the bill's immediate Congressional approval. President Johnson viewed the Fair Housing Act as a fitting memorial to Dr. King's life work and wished to have the Act passed before Dr. King's funeral in Atlanta. The Fair Housing Act expanded on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Subsequent amendments in 1974 and 1988 added gender, disability, and familial status as protected classes.
The Fair Housing Act is the primary source of protection against housing discrimination. It was originally enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ( Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241). It is codified as 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. of the United States Code. The last major amendment to the Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1998, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-430, 102 Stat.1619). The annotated versions of the code additionally provide helpful case citations and references to secondary sources.
The Fair Housing Act has been amended a number of times since its initial enactment. The law originally only prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Act was amended in 1974 to include the prohibition against sex discrimination in the realm of housing. In 1988 the act was further amended to include the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of physical or mental handicap as well as on the basis of familial status.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). The Court ruled that enforcing restrictive covenants against non-white homeownership violated the equal protection clause and due process by denying ownership rights based on race.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). The Court ruled that 42 U.S.C. § 1982 prohibits all racial discrimination in property sales by private owners and public authorities, emphasizing Congress's authority under the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate the remnants of slavery.
Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972). Two tenants, one white and one black, filed complaints with HUD, alleging racial discrimination by their landlord, which hindered their opportunities in an integrated community. The trial court ruled they lacked standing to sue under the FHA, a decision upheld on appeal. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned this ruling, stating that the FHA allows any resident who suffers injury from racial discrimination to sue, emphasizing a broad definition of "person aggrieved." The Court noted that HUD recognized the tenants as qualified aggrieved persons under the FHA.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). This case established that proof of discriminatory intent is necessary to challenge zoning decisions under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), emphasizing the importance of evidence in fair housing cases.
Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979). Respondents, posing as potential homebuyers, investigated alleged racial "steering" by petitioners and filed a lawsuit. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that the respondents had standing under the FHA. The Court partially affirmed this, stating the municipality and local testers had standing due to actual injury, while two individual respondents lacked standing as they did not live in the relevant municipality.
Tex. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015). This case supported the "disparate impact" theory under the FHA, allowing challenges to housing practices with discriminatory effects, regardless of intent. It was a crucial win for fair housing advocates, promoting non-discriminatory housing policies.
Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, 581 U.S. 189 (2017). The plaintiff sued the defendant banks for allegedly violating the FHA by targeting African-American and Latino neighborhoods with discriminatory lending practices. The Court ruled that the plaintiff's claims of lost tax revenue and increased expenses were valid under the FHA, stating that foreseeability alone does not establish proximate cause.