Newsroom

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding the "disparate impact" analysis in Fair Housing Act discrimination cases means housing advocates and the federal government can continue to file lawsuits against lenders when there is evidence their policies have had a disproportionate effect on minority neighborhoods.

It was the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the decades-old legal theory.

The court found that lenders and governments can be guilty of racial bias in lending activity based on statistical patterns, even if racial intent is not proven. By not having to show a lender intended to discriminate, the federal government has been able to demand billions in settlements from subprime mortgage lenders like Countrywide, Wells Fargo and SunTrust Mortgage.

The 5-4 opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who noted that disparate impact has long been established in fair housing cases. The case pitted the Inclusive Communities Project, a housing advocacy group, against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The housing group argued that the state's policy of distributing housing tax credits led to affordable housing options being concentrated in minority areas.

While NAFCU has steadfastly supported the enforcement of fair lending laws, it has raised concerns about disparate-impact claims. In a joint letter with other financial industry trades sent to the Hill last year, NAFCU said its members do not tolerate housing discrimination "in any size, shape or form" but that it had concerns with DOJ litigation that relies solely on the use of the disparate-impact theory of discrimination.