Case: 1:14-cv-09548 Document #: 36 Filed: 01/26/15 Page 28 of 40 PageID #:259 21 “result[s] of” unidentified borrowers’ “inability to meet their financial obligations,” and as such are only “marginally related” to the FHA’s goal of protecting individuals from discrimination and promoting integrated communities. See 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (FHA’s stated purpose is “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.”); Shaikh v. City of Chicago, 2001 WL 123784, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2001) (“The overall purpose of the FHA is to further equal housing opportunity and to eliminate segregated housing”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Nor does plaintiff here meet the stringent standards required to show conflict preemption. Congress expressly stated that the purpose of the FHA is to “provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (emphasis added). One such constitutional limitation is the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from taking private property without due process and payment of just compensation.

Sess.) July 2, 1992, p. 2) to the federal Fair Housing Act and its amendments (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.).” Thus, the FEHA provisions referred to in the Complaint protect substantially the same rights as the FHA provisions and are subject to the same analysis.

Id. at 2521 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3601). The Court recognized that “vestiges remain today, intertwined with the country’s economic and social life,” of Case 1:13-cv-00966-RJL Document 64 Filed 08/30/16 Page 19 of 54 10 unconstitutional de jure residential segregation by race, and concluded that disparate impact liability helps to “counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus.”

The FHA was enacted in 1968 to combat and prevent racial segregation and discrimination in housing. See Tex. Dep’t of Housing & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2516 (2015) (“ICP VI”); see also 42 U.S.C. Case 3:17-cv-00206-K Document 42 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID 351 CPF PC RIVERWALK, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF - PAGE 10 OF 17 § 3601 (stating that the purpose of the FHA is “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States”). To that end, the FHA makes it unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent,” “refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of,” or “otherwise make unavailable or deny” housing to any person “because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Case: 1:14-cv-02280 Document #: 29 Filed: 06/03/14 Page 34 of 41 PageID #:403 26 diverse and integrated neighborhoods for the benefit of individuals and the citizenry generally. See 42 U.S.C. § 3601(FHA’s stated purpose is “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States”); Shaikh v. City of Chicago, 2001 WL 123784, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2001) (“The overall purpose of the FHA is to further equal housing opportunity and to eliminate segregated housing”) (quotations and citation omitted); HOME v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 943 F.2d 644, 652 (6th Cir. 1991) (FHA purposes are “to eradicate housing discrimination and to promote integrated housing”). There is nothing in the FHA caselaw, or the statute itself, that supports any conclusion that the FHA was enacted to protect a county’s tax base or budget.

Case 6:10-cv-01920-JA-DAB Document 41 Filed 02/09/11 Page 18 of 20 19 Count VI alleges that OHA violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., however Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of either discrimination or disparate treatment. Plaintiffs‟ failure to allege with any specificity any discriminatory practices by OHA should result in the dismissal of Count VI of Plaintiffs‟ Complaint.

C-07-05794MHP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Arroyo Vista, and persons in the community eligible to live in Arroyo Vista are all disproportionately persons of color or families with children as compared with the general population in the surrounding community. This disparate impact together with the illegality of the disposition violates both the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Govt.

AARP’s charitable affiliate, AARP Foundation, works to ensure that low-income older adults have nutritious food, affordable housing, a steady income, and strong and sustaining bonds. AARP and AARP Foundation litigate on behalf of plaintiffs to challenge practices that violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., while preserving and expanding housing opportunities for low income families. See, e.g., Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Twp.

007 (effective September 1, 2015). C. ICP’s First Amended Complaint As described below, ICP brings claims pursuant to both the FHA (42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection Clause claim). Doc.