The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice Seal The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 

Appellate Briefs and Opinions Banner

Housing

  • Austin Apartment Association v. City of Austin (5th Cir.) – Amicus
    • An Austin Ordinance that prohibits landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants based on "source of income," including federal housing subsidies, is not preempted by the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.

     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 07/13/15
  • Castillo Condominium Association v. HUD (1st Cir.) – Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
    • The Court should grant the Secretary's cross-application to enforce the final agency order of October 2, 2014
    • Substantial evidence supports the Secretary's determination that Castillo Condominium violated Sections 804(f)(1) and (f)(2) of the FHA
    • The ALJ correctly denied Castillo's pre-hearing motion to dismiss the charge based on res judicata and motion in limine to exclude the testimony and expert written report of Giménez's treating psychiatrist

     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner 06/17/15
    Cross-Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order 02/10/15
  • Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (S. Ct.) – Amicus
    • Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Sections 804(a) and 805(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.

     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, available at 2015 WL 2473449 06/25/15
    Brief as Amicus 12/23/14
  • Gomez v. Quicken Loans (9th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's disparate treatment claim under the FHA
    • SSDI letters that do not contain expiration dates sufficiently establish that the disability benefits would likely continue and lenders may not require SSDI recipients to provide medical documentation as additional proof that the disability benefits would continue

     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 01/16/14
  • Township of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. (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 
    Dismissed, reported at 134 S. Ct. 636 11/15/13
    Brief as Amicus 10/28/13
    Certiorari Granted, reported at 133 S. Ct. 2824 06/17/13
    Brief as Amicus 05/17/13
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 725 F.3d 571 08/05/13
    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 
    Certiorari Dismissed, reported at 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 730 F.3d 1142 09/20/13
    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 
    Dismissed 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 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 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 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, available at 418 F. App'x 872 03/22/11
    Reply Brief as Appellant 11/08/10
    Brief as Appellant 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 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, available at 499 F. App'x 414 09/06/12
    Brief as Amicus 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 07/13/10
  • 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 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 02/18/10
    Reply Brief as Appellant 09/25/09
    Brief as Appellant 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, available at 320 F. App'x 635 03/26/09
    Brief as Respondent 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 11/13/09
    Brief as Amicus 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, reported at 569 F.3d 677 06/23/09
    Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 381 F. App'x 674 06/02/10
    Court of Appeals Order 07/16/09
    Second Brief as Amicus 03/17/09
    Brief as Amicus 11/06/08
  • 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 01/13/09
    Brief as Appellee 06/18/08
  • 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 
    District Court Decision, available at 2006 WL 1735345 09/26/06
    Brief as Amicus 04/14/06
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 465 F.3d 737 09/26/06
    Brief as Amicus on Rehearing En Banc 11/23/05
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 475 F.3d 898 02/02/07
    Brief as Respondent 08/29/05
  • Richard & Milton Grant Co. v. Memphis Center for Independent Living (6th Cir.) -- Respondent
    • Defendants' petitions for interlocutory appeal should be rejected for failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
    • There are no controlling issues of law as to which a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists
    • An interlocutory appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation

     
    Document Date 
    Petitions for Permission to Appeal Denied 11/04/04
    Answer in Opposition as Respondent 09/02/04
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 104 F. App'x 796 07/19/04
    Brief as Appellee 01/12/04
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 359 F.3d 727 02/04/04
    Brief as Appellee 09/12/03
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 384 F.3d 258 08/25/04
    Brief as Appellee 08/18/03
  • 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 
    Petition for Rehearing Denied 03/04/02
    Response of the United States to Petition for Rehearing 02/12/02
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 285 F.3d 899 04/09/02
    Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF] 03/26/01
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 234 F. 3d 192 11/22/00
    Brief as Intervenor [HTML] [PDF] 02/22/00
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 192 F.3d 1208 08/04/00
    Brief as Amicus En Banc [HTML] [PDF] 12/22/99
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished 11/01/00
    Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF] 09/23/99
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 211 F.3d 298 05/15/00
    Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF] 06/10/99
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 208 F.3d 419 03/22/00
    Brief as Amicus [HTML] [PDF] 06/03/99
  • United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc. (8th Cir. and S. Ct.) -- 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 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 529 U.S. 1018 03/20/00
    Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari 02/14/00
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 184 F.3d 924 07/09/99
    Brief as Appellee [HTML] [PDF] 11/20/98


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)
Equal Access to Justice Act
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other
General Information Appellate Section
 
Leadership
Diana K. Flynn
Chief
Contact
Appellate Section
(202) 514-2195
FAX - (202) 514-8490
Email:
General Appellate Contact:
crt.appellate@usdoj.gov

Amicus curiae suggestions may be submitted to crt.amicus@usdoj.gov. Submissions should include case name, docket number, circuit/district court name, a brief description of the case and issue, and the current status if known.

Stay Connected YouTube MySpace Twitter Facebook Sign Up for E-Mail Updates Subscribe to News Feeds