Township of Mt. Holly vs. Mt. Holly Gardens

If you are being watched, leave now!

Determined whether the Fair Housing Act (FHA) authorizes “disparate impact” challenges to policies that do not explicitly discriminate on the ground of race or sex, but which have an unjustified disproportionate racial or gender impact.  

Full Case Titile: 

Township of Mt. Holly et al. vs. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action et al.
  • Fairness in the Courts

Year: 

2013
  • Public Benefits and Poverty
  • Racial Justice
  • Authored Amicus Brief

Brief: 

Summary of the Case

The issue in Mt. Holly is whether the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which bans housing discrimination on the grounds (among others) of race or sex, authorizes “disparate impact” challenges to policies that do not explicitly discriminate on the ground of race or sex, but which have an unjustified disproportionate racial or gender impact.  

Our Role in the Case

Legal Momentum filed the brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Legal Momentum, Futures Without Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the NOW Foundation, and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Our brief argues that the FHA does authorize disparate impact claims.

 

Mt. Holly Amicus for Legal Momentum, Futures Without Violence, NCADV, NNEDV, NOW Foundation, NRCDV.pdf by Legal Momentum

Tags: