Roger Clegg has an insightful article (as usual) on law.com about Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, an insufficiently heralded case that is scheduled for U.S. Supreme Court argument this term. (Link via Howard Bashman.) As Clegg points out,
one of the issues for which the Court granted cert is extremely important: Whether the federal Fair Housing Act’s ban on racial discrimination can be violated by someone who does not engage in racial discrimination.
For those of you to whom it seems bizarre for the Court to decide whether someone who does not engage in racial discrimination can violate a ban against racial discrimination, welcome to the wonderful world of “disparate impact.” This article by Roger Clegg is as good a short introduction to the topic as you’ll find.
While there may be much to agree with in Mr. Clegg’s article, his premise is false: The City of Cuyahoga Falls did engage in discrimination, or at least worked in concert with some of its citizens who engaged in discrimination.
What Mr. Clegg was really reacting to (and I have spoken with him, so I know) was the implication in the 6th Circuit’s opinion that a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Law might lie absent evidence of intentional discrimination. While that may be a fair reading of the 6th Circuit’s opinion, it is not our case against Cuyahoga Falls.
In preparing our brief, due to be submitted at the end of this month, we have compiled an exhaustive list of evidence of actions by citizens of Cuyahoga Falls and City officials acting in concert with them that evidences discriminatory motivations against people of color and families with children.
While the questions posed by the 6th Circuit’s opinion may make for an interesting intellectual discussion, such issues will not really be before the Supreme Court insofar as our brief will make it clear that our case is an intent, not a disparate income, claim under the Fair Housing Law.
Gil Barno
Executive Director
Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
What we have here, I think, is a good demonstration on the power of blogging. Where else could a comment about an article about a pending Sup. Court case elicit a quick reply by an obviously well-informed party to the case?
So, Mr. Barno, first: thanks for sharing you take on the case with however many readers happen to stop by here. Second, on the substance of your comment/merits of the case, I also really appreciate having your perspective. I have no position on the guilt of the city of Cuyahoga Falls, but I do think — and you seem to agree — that in order to find them guilty discriminatory intent must be established.
Roger Clegg saw these comments and emailed me the following response to post here:
The trouble with Mr. Barno