Opinion ID: 2832681
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Early Supreme Court cases

Text: The first major FHA case explicated by the Supreme Court is Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 409 U.S. 205 (1972). Two tenants of an apartment complex -- one black, one white -- alleged that the landlord discriminated against minorities on the basis of race when renting units, in violation of the FHA. Id. at 206-07. The Court held that standing under the Act was defined “as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution . . . insofar as tenants of the same housing unit that is charged with discrimination are concerned.” Id. at 209 (quotation omitted). “The language of the Act is broad and inclusive,” the Court wrote, and “the alleged injury to existing tenants by exclusion of minority persons from the apartment complex is the loss of important benefits from interracial associations.” Id. at 209-10. 22 Case: 14-14543 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 23 of 57 Seven years later, in Gladstone, the Village of Bellwood brought suit under the FHA against two real estate firms for “steering” black and white homeowners into targeted, race-specific neighborhoods, thereby “manipulat[ing] the housing market,” “affecting the village’s racial composition,” and causing “[a] significant reduction in property values.” 441 U.S. at 109-10. The Court concluded that the village had stated a cause of action under the FHA and reaffirmed, based on the legislative history and purpose of the statute, that statutory standing under the FHA “is as broad as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.” Id. at 109 (quotation omitted and alteration adopted). Next came Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), in which -- along with other plaintiffs -- a nonprofit corporation whose purpose was “to make equal opportunity in housing a reality in the Richmond Metropolitan Area” brought an FHA claim against a realty firm for racial steering (i.e., fostering racial segregation by guiding prospective buyers towards or away from certain apartments based on the buyer’s race). In the clearest and most unambiguous terms, the Supreme Court reiterated the holding of Gladstone: “Congress intended standing under [the FHA] to extend to the full limits of Art. III and . . . the courts accordingly lack the authority to create prudential barriers to standing in suits brought under [the FHA].” Id. at 372 (quotation omitted). As the Court explained, “the sole requirement for standing to sue under [the FHA] is the Art. III minima of 23 Case: 14-14543 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 24 of 57 injury in fact: that the plaintiff allege that as a result of the defendant’s actions he has suffered ‘a distinct and palpable injury.’” Id. (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)). The organization’s allegation that the racial steering “perceptibly impaired [its] ability to provide counseling and referral services for low- and moderate-income homeseekers” was sufficient to constitute injury in fact for purposes of Article III (and statutory) standing. Id. at 379.