Document: 488 U.S. 15 109 S.Ct. 276 102 L.Ed.2d 180 TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK, et al., Appellantsv.HUNTINGTON BRANCH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT COLORED PEOPLE, al. No. 87-1961. Nov. 7, 1988. Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1989. See 1023, 824. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of New York Planning Federation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. 2 town Huntington, N.Y., has about 200,000 residents, 95% whom are white and less than 4% black. Almost three-fourths the black population clustered in six census tracts town's Huntington Station South Greenlawn areas. Of remaining 42 tracts, 30 at least 99% white. 3 As part Huntington's urban renewal effort 1960's, created zoning classification (R-3M Garden Apartment District) permitting construction multifamily housing projects, but by § 198-20 Town Code, App. Juris. Statement 94a, restricted private such "urban area"—the section around Station, where 52% residents minorities. Although permits Housing Authority (HHA) build townwide, only existing HHA project within area. 4 Help, Inc. (HHI), developer interested fostering residential integration, acquired an option purchase site Greenlawn/East Northport, 98% zoned single-family residences. On February 26, 1980, HHI requested board commit amend Code permit rental developer. January 6, 1981, formally rejected this request. 23, HHI, Branch National Association Advancement Colored People (NAACP), two black, low-income (appellees) filed complaint against members (appellants) Federal District Court Eastern York, alleging, inter alia, that they had violated Title VIII Civil Rights Act 1968 (1) refusing code allow outside zone (2) rezone proposed R-3M. Appellees asserted both these claims should be adjudicated under disparate-impact standard. Appellants agreed facial challenge ordinance evaluated on basis, maintained decision not analyzed discriminatory-intent 5 Following bench trial, appellees' claims. 668 F.Supp. 762 (EDNY 1987). Appeals Second Circuit reversed 844 F.2d 926 (1988). held that, order establish prima facie case, plaintiff need demonstrate action or rule challenged discriminatory impact. failure (which all concerns us here), court found impact because disproportionately high percentage households use would eligible subsidized units minorities, restricts largely minority area, which "significantly perpetuated segregation Town." Id., 938. declared rebut appellants put forth "bona fide legitimate" reasons their no "less alternative can serve those ends." 939. appellants' rationale refusal ordinance—that restriction projects area encourage developers invest deteriorated needy clearly inadequate. In court's view, was more likely cause towns other depressed tax incentives have been efficacious means desired end. 6 After concluding VIII, directed strike from ordered 7 seeks review pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1254(2) basis striking limitation invalidated "a State statute . repugnant to" "la[w] United States." Viewing case involving separate claims, presented parties courts below, we note jurisdiction, limit our portion implicating mandatory jurisdiction. Thus, expressly decline judgment insofar it relates site. 8 Since conceded applicability test evaluating do reach question whether appropriate one. Without endorsing precise analysis Appeals, satisfied record disparate shown, sole justification proffered points holding with regard present substantial federal questions. Accordingly, 9 Affirmed. 10 Justice WHITE, MARSHALL, STEVENS probable jurisdiction set oral argument.

Category: 1