Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
395 U.S. App. D.C. 67
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Road Home/Option 1 grant formula uses the lesser of pre-storm home value and cost-to-rebuild, minus FEMA/insurance, capped at $150,000; ACGs later removed cap for low-income insureds; program administered by Louisiana OCD under LRA; Keegan is OCD Executive Director; HUD funds Road Home and HUD is a named defendant but not participating on appeal; plaintiffs allege FHA disparate impact from the pre-Katrina value ceiling affecting African-American homeowners in New Orleans; district court denied initial injunctive relief due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, while later injunctions sought relief affecting future grants; on appeal the court found likelihood of success on merits insufficient and affirmed/ reversed injunction rulings, remanding for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion; PolicyLink study data were used by plaintiffs to argue disparate impact but the court rejected the benchmarking and data as proving a violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a cognizable FHA disparate-impact claim against the Road Home formula? | Plaintiffs allege the pre-storm value ceiling has a disproportionate impact on African-Americans. | Keegan contends no cognizable disparate-impact claim and disputes the showing of impact. | Disparate-impact theory assumed but not proven. |
| Does the Eleventh Amendment bar relief or affect jurisdiction for injunctive relief? | Edelman/Judicial doctrine bars retroactive relief and ties relief to state treasury. | State sovereign immunity blocks certain relief but Ex parte Young allows some prospective relief. | Eleventh Amendment does not bar the district court from addressing merits; merits do not justify injunctive relief. |
| What is the appropriate benchmark for assessing disparate-impact in this complex grant formula? | Resource-gap or similar benchmark shows discriminatory impact. | Benchmarking is uncertain; alternative measures possible; data insufficient. | The resource-gap benchmark is inappropriate; even under plausible benchmarks plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success. |
| Is there sufficient data to prove a parish-wide disparate impact, including non-LMI African-American applicants? | Disaggregated, parish-wide data show disparity for non-LMI African-Americans. | Evidence is insufficient; PolicyLink data not disaggregated; statewide analysis not properly argued. | Evidence lacking; plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (Eleventh Amendment retroactive relief limitations; prospective relief may be allowed)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. Supreme Court 1908) (Prospective injunctive relief against state official)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (Jurisdictional questions prioritized; exception for merits when outcome foreordained)
- 2922 Sherman Avenue Tenants' Association v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Disparate-impact theory under Fair Housing Act assumed in circuit)
- Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988) (Second Circuit burden-shifting/disparate-impact framework reference)
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (Title VII-inspired disparate impact considerations)