The case is Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., issued on February 10.What occasions this infrequent procedure is a ruling the three-judge panel issued in December 2019, found at 944 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2019), in which the Court held by a 2 to 1 majority that the Fair Housing Act holds landlords liable if they to stop known racial harassment in their buildings. Here is how the Court summarized the issues in this case: Just over fifty years ago, spurred by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress enacted Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 etseq., a landmark piece of civil rights legislation that accompanied the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The main question before us is whether a landlord may be liable under the FHA for intentionally discriminating against a tenant based on the tenant’s race.

For an understanding of redlining in the context of residential mortgage loans, it’s useful to start by looking at the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, because it’s through these two Acts that the government pursues actions against mortgage lenders for redlining. “The Fair Housing Act…which is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 3601 et seq.), makes it unlawful for any lender to discriminate in its housing-related lending activities against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status. Anyone who is in the business of providing housing-related loans is subject to the [Fair Housing Act] (as well as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act).”

ainer (“FED”) actions may assert violations of the Colorado Fair Housing Act (“CFHA”) as an affirmative defense to eviction.BackgroundIn 2021, plaintiff Jesse Amos entered into an oral tenancy agreement with defendant Claire E. Miller, whereby Amos granted Miller and her son tenancy in exchange for “pet care and light housekeeping services” in lieu of monetary rent(Miller v. Amos, 2024 CO 11 at ¶4) (hereinafter “Miller”).Six months later, Amos served Miller with statutory notice of termination of the tenancy for an alleged breach of contract (Id).Miller remained in the dwelling unit after the expiration of the notice period, and Amos filed a FED action against Miller in Adams County Court (Id. at ¶5). Miller filed an answer and argued, as pertinent, that Amos commenced eviction proceedings against her in retaliation for her refusal to engage in sexual acts with him (Id. at ¶¶5, 7).Miller also asserted several counterclaims, including violation of CFHA and the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§3601‑3619 (Id).The County Court concluded that a claim of pretextual (i.e., discriminatory or retaliatory) eviction is no defense to an FED action because a landlord may commence an eviction action for any reason, or no reason; accordingly, discriminatory or retaliatory intent cannot form the basis for a defense (¶8). The District Court affirmed the County Court’s judgment for different reasons.The District Court examined the text and legislative history of the CFHA and concluded that there was no indication that the legislature intended for an alleged violation of CFHA to be available for use as an affirmative defense because CFHA’s references to relief “all refer to affirmative relief,” (¶9).Further, an aggrieved tenant could pursue civil remedy in the form of a counterclaim or separate action (Id).RulingThe Colorado Supreme Court reversed the County and District courts' decision and held that the defendant in a forcible entry and detainer action may assert a violation of the Colorado Fair Housing

In a recent legal development, the 11th US Circuit issued a consequential verdict in Shen v. Simpson, a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s Conveyances to Foreign Entities Act (SB 264), which restricts individuals from China and other “foreign countries of concern” from owning real property in the state. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the constitutional aspects surrounding real estate transactions within Florida.The genesis of this legal process traces back to May 2023, when a group of Chinese individuals filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 264. Enacted on July 1, 2023, under Chapter 692, FS, SB 264 faced scrutiny based on allegations of violating the 14th Amendment (equal protection/due process), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC §3601 et seq.), and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.The 11th US Circuit’s Opinion, issued on February 1, 2024, determined that SB 264’s provisions, which prohibited certain real estate acquisitions by foreign nationals, notably those from China, contravene federal laws governing real estate purchases. While the immediate focus was on restrictions against Chinese nationals, legal observers anticipate broader implications, with potential challenges against similar restrictions on citizens from Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria.In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Nancy Abudu, the presiding judge, expressed her support for the injunction based on the plaintiffs’ claim that SB 264 violates the Equal Protection Clause. She noted that recent US Supreme Court decisions have cast doubt on the constitutionality of such state-based “alien” restrictions, suggesting that SB 264 might not withstand strict scrutiny.The overall takeaway from this ruling is twofold. First

On May 31, 2023, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ),announcedthat it had entered intoasettlementwith a Philadelphia based bank and trust company over allegations that the bank had engaged in unlawful redlining in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. In theComplaint, filed contemporaneously with the consent orderin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the DOJ alleges that the bank’s practices violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA),42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, andthe Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA),15 U.S.C. §§ 1691–1691f​,by failing to adequatelyservice majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Philadelphia.Specifically, DOJ alleged that, the bank excluded predominantly-Black and Hispanic census tracts from its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2908, “assessment areas,” and therefore that it’s lending practices did not meet the needs of the community that it served. DOJ alleged that it initiated its investigation after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) referred its findings from the FDIC’s consumer compliance examination of the bank. DOJ further alleged that the bank failed to adequately staff branches in majority-Black neighborhoods with loan officers and did not engage in meaningful marketing and outreach in minority communities around Philadelphia. Under the consent order, the bank agreed to establish a $2.92 Million “Loan Subsidy Fund” for consumers applying for first mortgages, home improvement

American Bar Association’s Business Law Today - April 18 2023On March 17, 2023, in honor of Fair Housing Month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced it would reinstate the 2013 discriminatory effects rule (the 2013 Rule) (see 24 C.F.R. § 100.500 (2014)) under the Fair Housing Act. In doing so, HUD will also officially rescind its 2020 rule governing Fair Housing Act disparate impact claims (the 2020 Rule) (see 24 C.F.R. § 100.500 (2020)). While HUD believes the 2013 Rule is more consistent with how the Fair Housing Act has been applied in the courts, in its announcement, HUD failed to reference the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), which was one of the primary motivators behind the 2020 Rule.The final rule re-adopting the 2013 Rule was published March 31, 2023, in the Federal Register. The effective date is May 1, 2023.The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) prohibits discrimination in housing and housing-related services because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), familial status, and disability. This includes a general prohibition against discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, in “residential real estate-related transactions,” and the provision of brokerage services. Further, the discriminatory effects doctrine, which includes disparate impact, can extend Fair Housing Act protections to policies that result in discrimination—even if such policies were not adopted with discriminatory intent. For example, 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a) provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, o

On March 17, 2023, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development reinstated a 2013 discriminatory effects rule regarding liability under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.). In doing so, HUD rescinded a 2020 rule regarding proving liability under the Act.According to HUD, the Act “prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, familial status, or national origin. This prohibition extends to practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate.” Homeowners’ insurance companies are subject to the Act, which prohibits, among other things, charging higher rates, offering different terms or conditions, or refusing or denying coverage on the basis of a protected category.The 2013 Rule, to be reinstated, involves the following burden-shifting analysis when HUD charges an insurance company with violating the Act: the claimant “is first required to prove as part of the prima facie showing that a challenged practice caused or pre

A Complaint, recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleges that a national mortgage lender and a Maryland-based appraiser engaged in racial discrimination in the appraisal of a Baltimore couple’s home, violating the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and Maryland Fair Housing Laws.According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs – two Black professors living in one of Baltimore’s Historic neighborhoods – sought to refinance their existing mortgage to take advantage of low interest rates. Plaintiffs applied for the refinance with the national lender and were informed they met the company’s creditworthiness standards for refinancing, but that approval was contingent on confirming the homes $550,000 estimated value. However, a local appraisal company hired by the lender valued Plaintiffs’ home at $472,000, resulting in the lender denying their application for refinance.Plaintiffs allege that the appraisal was racially discriminatory. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the appraiser limited the geographic area of potential comparables to only 16% of the total land area. Further, Plaintiffs allege that the appraise

On June 21,2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint and settlement agreement in federal court alleging that a social media company is in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, for employing tools that allow advertisers of housing-related services to exclude certain users from seeing their ads based on the users’ race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status and national origin, which are FHA-protected characteristics. According to the settlement agreement, the social media company has agreed to cease using or modify its use of the tools, and will pay approximately $115,000 in civil money penalties.

The State of Oregon passed a law (HB 2550), and it signed by Governor Kate Brown, that, among other things, states the following:In order to help a seller avoid selecting a buyer based on the buyer’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or familial status as prohibited by the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), a seller’s agent shall reject any communication other than customary documents in a real estate transaction, including photographs, provided by a buyer.What exactly is the Oregon legislature seeking to prevent a seller’s agent from communicating? The new law prohibits buyer’s agents from providing the seller’s agent with what is known as “love letters,” letters written by the buyer with the intent of wooing sellers to accept their offers.