Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The Supreme Court saved the Fair Housing Act of 1968

Mark Wilson/Getty Images
  1. In a close 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that stated the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was guilty of housing discrimination.
  2. The case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., focuses on the disparate impact portion of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prevented housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in an effort to combat residential segregation during the civil rights era.
  3. A disparate impact claim means that regardless of intent, a law results in discrimination. This means that appellants only have to prove that a law’s impact results in discrimination, and not the additional claim that the writers of the law intended it to have that impact. Disparate impact is a key component of the Fair Housing Act, and is an important tool for the federal government in prosecuting instances of discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed this component in its decision.
  4. The case was brought by the Inclusive Communities Project, a Dallas-based nonprofit that works to improve racial and socioeconomic integration within neighborhoods. Inclusive Communities, as they are known, sued Texas in 2008, on the grounds that the agency encouraged racial segregation in its support of low-income housing projects.
  5. The decision came as somewhat of a surprise to civil rights advocates who were concerned that the Roberts court, if given the chance, would rule against a disparate impact claim, thus taking the teeth out of the Fair Housing Act. In 2013, the Court invalidated a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, another nondiscrimination law from the civil rights era.

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters