Thirteen amicus briefs have been filed in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., the case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court in which the question presented is whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  

Twelve of the amicus briefs support the Township’s position that the FHA prohibits only intentional discrimination and does not allow disparate impact claims. … Continue Reading

Despite the pending settlement discussions, the Township of Mount Holly has filed
its opening brief in the U.S. Supreme Court.  The question presented in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. is whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  In the case, the Township’s plan to redevelop a residential area was challenged as having a disparate adverse impact on minorities. … Continue Reading

The Township of Mount Holly and other petitioners for certiorari in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. filed a brief on May 24, 2013 in the U.S. Supreme Court replying to the brief filed by the Solicitor General.  On May 17, the Solicitor General, having been invited to do so by the court, filed a brief expressing the views of the United States on whether the court should grant the petition for certiorari. … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case that may require the CFPB to re-write part of its recently-released Mortgage Servicing Examination Procedures. Magner v. Gallagher raises the issue of whether disparate impact claims are even cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, and will require the Supreme Court to decide that issue in the context of deferring (or not deferring) to a long-standing HUD interpretation of that Act to allow disparate impact claims.… Continue Reading