Housing & Civil Enforcement

• Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al. v. Township of Mount Holly, et al. (S. Ct.) – Amicus
  • The Court should not review petitioners' claim that the Fair Housing Act does not encompass disparate-impact liability, noting that all 11 circuits to have decided the issue have permitted such claims
  • The Department of Housing and Urban Development, consistent with its longstanding position, has recently promulgated a regulation providing for disparate-impact liability. Because the new regulation lays out a burden-shifting analysis for deciding such claims, the Court need not review any circuit split on the appropriate burdens of proof
  • Because this case was decided without the benefit of the new regulation and respondents had not raised their current claims below, the case was not an appropriate vehicle for resolving the questions presented in the petition for certiorari
  
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Granted, 2013 WL 2922132	06/17/13
  Brief as Amicus	05/17/13

• Corey v. HUD (4th Cir.) – Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
  • Substantial evidence supports the Secretary's determination that Corey violated Sections 3604(c), 3604(f)(1), and 3604(f)(2) of the Fair Housing Act
  • The Secretary acted within his discretion in ordering $18,000 in emotional distress damages, the maximum $16,000 civil penalty, and injunctive relief
  • This Court should grant the Secretary's cross-application for enforcement of the final agency order
  • Petitioner/Cross-Respondent failed to provide sufficient information in support of the stay request
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Respondent/Cross- Petitioner	12/03/12
  Court of Appeals Order	10/22/12
  Response to Motion to Stay	10/15/12
  Cross Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order	10/04/12

• Miami Valley Fair Housing Center v. The Connor Group, et al. (6th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law by applying an incorrect legal standard in analyzing plaintiff's FHA claim that required the jury to determine if the ad focuses on the suitability of the property to the renter, rather than the acceptability of the renter to the owner
  • Plaintiff needed only to show that the ad indicates to the ordinary reader an unlawful preference, and that this ad on its face shows such a preference based on sex and familial status
  • The jury instructions contained the same erroneous legal standard
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	06/22/12

• Magner v. Gallagher (S. Ct.) – Amicus
  • The Fair Housing Act encompasses disparate impact claims, as evidenced by the statutory text and structure and HUD's authoritative construction, which is reasonably entitled to Chevron deference
  • Such claims should be analyzed through burden shifting comparable to the analysis used in Title VII disparate impact claims
  • The respondents here failed to produce sufficient evidence at summary judgment to make out a prima facie case
  
   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Certiorari Dismissed, 132 S.Ct. 1306	02/14/12
  Brief as Amicus	12/29/11

• Pacific Shores Properties, LLC, et al. v. City of Newport Beach and Newport Coast Recovery LLC, et al. v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court erred in requiring plaintiffs to show that they were treated differently than similarly situated individuals who do not have disabilities to prove intentional discrimination based on disability
  • The district court misconstrued plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claims and applied an erroneous standard in determining whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial concerning the City's discriminatory intent
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	10/11/11

• Maze v. HUD (11th Cir.) – Petitioner
  • The owner of the rental home is vicariously liable for the discrimination
  
   

  Document	Date
  Order of Dismissal	01/06/12
  Application for Enforcement	08/01/11

• United States v. Hurt (8th Cir.) – Appellant
  • The court erred by failing to determine whether the action as a whole was "substantially justified," and by failing to recognize that a pattern or practice case, by its very nature, is a single claim, not a collection of individual claims
  • The court failed to recognize that given its denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment and a directed verdict, there is a presumption that the government's case was substantially justified
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 676 F.3d 649	04/12/12
  Reply Brief	08/23/11
  Brief as Appellant	06/17/11

• Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al. v. Township of Mount Holly, et al. (3d Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to state a prima facie case
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 658 F.3d 375	09/13/11
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	06/03/11

• Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission (9th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The provisions of Section 804(a) & (b) of the Fair Housing Act apply to conduct that does not involve the sale or rental of a dwelling
  • The district court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that defendants' homeless shelters do not qualify as "dwellings" as defined in the Fair Housing Act
  • The religious exemption in the Act applies to defendant's conduct with respect to both the shelters and the rehabilitation program
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 657 F.3d 988	09/19/11
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	04/29/11

• Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement and Service Ass'n (9th Cir.) – Amicus
  • District court's decision is correct insofar as it found that RISA violated HOPA until September 2007, but a remand is appropriate because of inadequate findings as to whether the community met HOPA's three criteria after September 2007
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 642 F.3d 765	04/27/11
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	02/18/11

• United States v. Hialeah Housing Authority (11th Cir.) – Appellant
  • The district court erred in concluding that even assuming that Mr. Rodriguez was disabled, “no reasonable jury could conclude that defendant knew or should have known Mr. Rodriguez was disabled and that HHA knew the requested accommodation was necessary.”
  • The facts are sufficient to establish that HHA knew or should have known that Mr. Rodriguez was disabled and requested an accommodation
  • Therefore HHA had an obligation to engage in an interactive process to try to resolve the request
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 418 F. App'x 872	03/22/11
  Reply Brief as Appellant	11/08/10
  Brief as Appellant [PDF]	08/09/10

• United States v. Billingsley (5th Cir.) – Appellee
  • The district court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction enjoining the residential community from removing or tampering with the footbridge built by an individual with a disability on land owned by the residential community
  • The district court properly exercised its discretion to issue preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo
  • Rehearing en banc is appropriate in this case because the Fifth Circuit’s ruling (1) conflicts with Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting the exception to the Anti-Injunction Act for the United States as plaintiff and (2) erroneously holds that that Section 3612(o) limits the United States to the kind of equitable relief a private party suing on his or her own behalf could obtain
  
   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc DENIED	10/20/10
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc	09/30/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 615 F.3d 404	08/16/10
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	01/13/10

• Fair Housing Resources Center v. DJM’S 4 Reasons Ltd., et al. (6th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court erred in refusing to give a reasonable accommodation instruction
  • The court erred in instructing the jury it must find that the testers’ claimed disability was the motivating factor for defendant’s statements
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 2012 WL 3871871	09/06/12
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	07/15/10

• Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc. (D.C. Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff, a non-profit fair housing organization, lacked standing to file suit on its own behalf to enforce the Fair Housing Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 633 F.3d 1136	03/08/11
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	07/13/10

• HUD & Guillén v. Astralis Condominium Ass'n (1st Cir.) – Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
  • ALJ correctly found Astralis violated the Fair Housing Act with respect to parking spaces for individuals with disabilities
  • Relief was appropriate
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 620 F.3d 62	09/16/10
  Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner [PDF]	03/08/10
  Application for Enforcement [PDF]	11/18/09

• Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al. (9th Cir. en banc) – Amicus
  • The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the underwriting and/or pricing of homeowner's insurance
  • Reverse-preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims under federal statutes, but rather it instructs courts how to construe federal statutes
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 600 F.3d 1201	04/09/10
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	01/29/10

• United States v. Thouvenot, Wade, Moerchen, Inc. (7th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • United States was “substantially justified” in naming the site developer as a defendant, and the site developer did not "incur" attorney's fees that its liability insurance carrier paid
  • The district court erred in ruling that the United States was not "substantially justified" in seeking to hold TWM liable for its participation in the inaccessible design and construction of Applegate Apartments
  • Attorney's fees that TWM’s insurer was obligated to pay and did pay were not "incurred by" TWN under EAJA
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 596 F.3d 378 [PDF]	02/18/10
  Reply Brief as Appellant [PDF]	09/25/09
  Brief as Appellant [PDF]	07/13/09

• Nelson v. HUD (9th Cir.) -- Brief as Respondent
  • HUD correctly interpreted its own regulations to require, upon proof of noncompliance with HUD’s Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, that petitioners demonstrate compliance with some other objective measure of accessibility.
  • Montana Fair Housing has standing under the Act
  • The ALJ’s initial decision dismissing the suit against the Nelsons is not HUD’s final order, and thus, not reviewable
  • HUD’s ruling that front entrances must be made accessible correctly interprets the Act
  • HUD properly held Bernard Nelson liable as a co-owner of the property;
  • Petitioners are not protected by their holding company from the court’s jurisdiction to enforce the remedial order’s retrofitting requirements
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 320 Fed. Appx. 635	03/26/09
  Brief as Respondent [PDF]	02/11/08

• Bloch v. Frischholz (7th Cir.) (en banc) -- Amicus
  • The Fair Housing Act and its regulations reach post-acquisition discrimination
  • A jury could have found that the owners’ association’s interpretation and enforcement of the rule was motivated by religious and racial animus
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 587 F.3d 771 [PDF]	11/13/09
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	01/16/09

• HUD v. Fung and Ho (7th Cir.) -- Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
  • On petition for review, Ho argues that the ALJ’s default judgment of liability and assessment of damages against her deprived her of due process. Fung argues that the ALJ’s default judgment of liability and assessment of damages arbitrarily departed from HUD and Circuit precedent. The Division responded to these claims and cross-petition for enforcement of HUD’s final order
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	09/12/12
  Application for Enforcement	08/08/12
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 569 F.3d 677	06/23/09
  Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner [PDF]	01/14/09

• Reed v. Peñasquitos Casablanca Owner's Ass'n (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The Fair Housing Act reaches harassment that occurs after the initial rental or purchase of housing
  • The district court erred in holding that plaintiffs harmed by the harassment of another can never state a claim under the FHA
  • The district court erred in holding that a victim must endure or witness overtly sexual behavior in order to recover in a case involving harassment on the basis of sex
  • The district court erred in holding that a homeowner’s association’s mere inaction after it is notified of an employee’s possible harassment can never justify an award of punitive damages
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	11/06/08
  Second brief as Amicus [PDF]	03/17/09
  Order accepting second amicus brief as filed [PDF]	07/16/09
  Court of Appeals Decision, 381 F. App'x 674 (unpublished)	06/02/10

• United States v. Mullins (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Any error that may have occurred during the cross-examination was invited error, and therefore is not reviewable
  • In the alternative, Mullins is unable to establish plain error
  • The record is not sufficient to allow the court of appeals to address Mullins’ ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, and, even if it were, Mullins is unable to demonstrate prejudice because the evidence supporting his conviction was overwhelming
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], (unpublished)	01/13/09
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	06/18/08

• McClain v. Shelter General Insurance Co. (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 537 F.3d 961	08/12/08
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	07/02/07
  Reply Brief as Amicus [PDF]	09/17/07

• Saunders v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 537 F.3d 961	08/12/08
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	07/02/07
  Reply Brief as Amicus [PDF]	09/17/07

• Saunders v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 537 F.3d 961	08/12/08
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	07/02/07
  Reply Brief as Amicus [PDF]	09/17/07

• George v. Colony Lakes Property Owners Ass'n (N.D. Ill.) -- Amicus
  • 24 C.F.R. 100.400(c)(2) permissibly interprets 42 U.S.C. 3617 to reach postacquisition discrimination
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	04/14/06
  District Court Decision, available at 2006 WL 1735345 (not reported)	09/26/06

• Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Does 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) or 28 C.F.R. 41.53 apply to disputes about zoning in suits under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
  • Do 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) and 28 C.F.R. 41.53, if applicable to zoning disputes, create an entitlement to accomodation in the absence of intentional discrimination or disparate impact?
  • If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is yes, are the regulations valid?
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus on Rehearing En Banc [PDF]	11/23/05
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 465 F.3d 737	09/26/06

• White v. HUD (7th Cir.) -- Respondent
  • Substantial evidence supports the ALJ'S decision that the August 1998 telephone conversation did not violate 42 U.S.C. 3604(C)
  • The ALJ did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant petitioner's request to amend the charge of discrimination
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Respondent [PDF]	08/29/05
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 475 F.3d 898	02/02/07

• Richard & Milton Grant Co. v. Memphis Center for Independent Living (6th Cir.) -- Respondent
  
   

  Document	Date
  Answer in Opposition as Respondent [PDF]	09/02/04
  Petitions for permission to appeal denied	11/04/04

• United States v. Garden Homes Management Corp. (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sanction of $1,000 per day for 208 days for defendants' failure to comply with the consent order and the court's first contempt order
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief for the United States as Appellee [PDF]	01/12/04
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], 104 Fed. Appx. 796 (unpublished)	07/19/04

• United States v. City of Jackson (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees and expenses as compensation for the City's violation of the consent decree
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief for the United States as Appellee [PDF]	09/12/03
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 359 F.3d 727	02/04/04

• United States v. Edward Rose & Sons (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction
  • The design of the 19 proposed buildings violates the Fair Housing Act
  • The district court had discretion to enter a preliminary injunction because the United States demonstrated at least a reasonable probability that a statutory violation had occurred or was about to occur
  • Even if the traditional equitable factors applied here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief for the United States as Appellee [PDF]	08/18/03
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 384 F.3d 258	08/25/04

• HUD v. Kocerka (7th Cir.) -- Petitioner
  • Whether this Court should set aside the order of enforcement it issued after Respondents failed to answer the third show cause order
  
   

  Document	Date
  Response of the United States to Petition for Rehearing [PDF]	02/12/02
  Petition for Rehearing Denied	03/04/02

• Fair Housing of Marin County v. Jack Combs (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Fair housing group established standing under the Fair Housing Act and Article III by demonstrating that the defendant's illegal housing discrimination injured the group's fair housing educational and counseling program, requiring the group to undertake remedial programs in the community to mitigate the damage
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML]  [PDF]	03/26/01
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 285 F.3d 899	04/09/02

• Groome Resources, Ltd. v. Parish of Jefferson (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
  • Fair Housing Act is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
  • Tenth Amendment no bar to application of Fair Housing Act to county
  • Act is not unconstitutionally vague
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor [HTML] [PDF]	02/22/00
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 234 F. 3d 192	11/22/00

• Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Landlords' Free Exercise Clause challenge to local fair housing law must fail because landlord did not make colorable claim that fair housing law constituted a taking of property or violated First Amendment right to free speech
  
   

  Document	Date
  En Banc Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF]	12/22/99
  Court of Appeals En Banc decision [PDF], reported at 192 F.3d 1208	08/04/00

• Veles v. Lindow (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Fair Housing Act prohibits actions with discriminatory effects on the basis of national origin
  • English-only rule imposed by landlord may violate Fair Housing Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML]  [PDF]	09/23/99
  Court of Appeals decision, unpublished	11/01/00

• LA ACORN Fair Housing v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not state, law
  • Punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act can be awarded without an award of compensatory damages
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML]  [PDF]	06/10/99
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 211 F.3d 298	05/15/00

• Alexander v. Riga (3d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not state, law
  • Punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act can be awarded without an award of compensatory damages
  • Showing of intentional discrimination is sufficient for award punitive damages
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF]	06/03/99
  Court of Appeals decision [HTML], reported at 208 F.3d 419	03/22/00

• United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc. (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Evidence sufficient to show pattern and practice of discrimination
  • Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not state, law
  • Appropriate to examine defendants' wealth in assessing punitive damages
  • $25,000 in punitive damages per defendant did not violate due process
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [HTML]  [PDF]	11/20/98
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 184 F.3d 924	07/09/99
  Opposition to Petition for Certiorari [HTML]  [PDF]	02/14/99
  Petition for Certiorari denied, reported at 529 U.S. 1018	03/20/00

---

Browse Briefs by Category

Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Religion Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other

---