794 F.3d 510
5th Cir.2015Background
- Hurricane Ike (2008) destroyed 569 public housing units across four Galveston sites; Galveston Housing Authority (GHA) demolished the sites and proposed a redevelopment plan replacing units partly on two original sites (Magnolia Homes and Cedar Terrace).
- GHA notified HUD of emergency demolitions per its ACC practice and later submitted a formal demolition application; HUD approved the demolition and later confirmed approval and that the actions complied with 42 U.S.C. § 1437p and implementing regulations.
- GHA’s master plan would replace the lost 569 units overall, with 144 replacement public-housing units located on the two former-site redevelopments and additional units to be built elsewhere under a one-for-one replacement settlement with Lone Star Legal Aid.
- Plaintiffs (individual neighbors and Galveston Open Government Project) sued to enjoin redevelopment alleging it would concentrate poverty and racial segregation; only Tryshatel McCardell (neighbor) remained after district court dismissed other plaintiffs for lack of standing.
- District court dismissed State Defendants on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds, granted summary judgment for defendants on McCardell’s Fair Housing Act claim, finding HUD’s approval triggered the §1437p(d) “safe harbor.” McCardell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — neighborhood standing to challenge planned redevelopment | McCardell: future segregative effects will deprive her of benefits of integrated community; expert reports support likely harm | Defendants: alleged future injury is speculative and not imminent; redressability uncertain | Held: McCardell has Article III standing; future injury sufficiently imminent and redressable under controlling precedents (Trafficante/Gladstone/Havens; Lujan/Clapper distinguished) |
| Appellate jurisdiction over other plaintiffs’ dismissals | McCardell: she can press appeal of dismissals on their behalf | Defendants: those plaintiffs didn’t file notices of appeal, so they aren’t parties here | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review dismissals of Individual Plaintiffs and GOGP because they did not appeal |
| Eleventh Amendment — whether FHA abrogates state sovereign immunity | McCardell: Congress intended to abrogate states’ immunity under the Fair Housing Act | Defendants: FHA contains no unmistakably clear abrogation language; Texas didn’t consent | Held: Congress did not unmistakably abrogate state sovereign immunity in the FHA; State Defendants properly dismissed |
| Preclusion of FHA claim by §1437p(d) safe harbor and HUD approval | McCardell: material factual disputes exist whether HUD review satisfied §1437p(d) standards, and demolition might have been under §1437v not §1437p | Defendants: HUD reviewed and expressly approved compliance with §1437p and implementing regs; §1437v inapplicable per HUD declaration | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — HUD reviewed/approved site under §1437p; safe harbor bars FHA claim as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (recognition of "neighborhood standing" for deprivation of benefits of interracial associations)
- Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (neighborhood standing can apply to compact neighborhoods beyond single buildings)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (reaffirmed neighborhood standing; required factual specificity about neighborhood proximity)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing framework — injury-in-fact, causation, redressability; pleading vs. summary judgment standards)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (threatened future injury must be certainly impending; rejected speculative chains of possibility)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (redressability analysis recognizing substantial probability that removal of regulatory barriers will lead to project materialization)