The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that individuals affected by discriminatory housing practices can still seek remedies even if they cannot prove the discrimination was intentional.
In a sharply divided and surprising 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the notion that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 allows those affected to challenge unfair housing practices, such as lending rules, rental policies and zoning laws that have a harmful impact on minority groups, even if there is no proof that companies or government agencies intended to discriminate.
While courts previously had agreed that so-called “disparate impact” could be grounds for lawsuits against banks, governments, landlords and others who make housing decisions that disproportionately impact minorities, opponents challenging the law argue that it was intended only to ban intentional discrimination.
