Fair Housing Act

  • January 21, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Cedric Ricks, Communications Associate, and Jorge Soto, Public Policy Associate, National Fair Housing Alliance

    “All life is interrelated, that somehow we’re caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.  For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.  You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.  This is the interrelated structure of reality.”  Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mich., December 19, 1963.

    Nearly half a century ago these powerful words typified the life and work of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Today, they are the cornerstone for a civil rights legacy that not only fights for racial justice in education, employment and housing, but for fairness for everyone facing injustice and discrimination. 

    King would be 84 if alive today.  It is important that we invoke his legacy as the nation prepares to honor his birth with a federal holiday.

    His ideals live on and are an active part of American culture - they provide a framework for measuring equality and justice in our society.  King’s assassination spurred Congress to pass the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, one week after his death.  The Act was created in the aftermath of riots across the country in protest against substandard living conditions in segregated African-American communities.  It was designed to end residential segregation and promote racial integration – two goals that continue today.

    The legislation also offered protections to millions of Americans who faced discrimination in housing based on their religion, skin color or national origin.  Since the Fair Housing Act’s inception, protections have been extended to address sex discrimination and the challenges people with disabilities and families with children encounter when looking for suitable housing.  We are at a crossroads - where public opinion supports addressing poverty in meaningful ways and the inevitable expansion of LGBT rights.  Ending housing discrimination for poor and LGBT people is our next step toward achieving full fair housing.

  • June 7, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Cedric Ricks, Communications Associate, National Fair Housing Alliance


    No one profits when potential homebuyers or renters are turned away, not because of their ability to pay, but because of their race, national origin, skin color, sex, religion, familial status or because of a disability.

    Housing discrimination is a sad reality that runs counter to the American ideal of fairness but affects nearly four million people annually. Unfortunately, meager funding allows only a fraction of those complaints to be investigated and rectified.  The nation’s private non-profit fair housing organizations investigated 65 percent of the 27,092 housing discrimination complaints filed across the nation in 2011, according to a recent report from the National Fair Housing Alliance. On a shoestring budget, these organizations are the first line of defense against illegal housing discrimination. The report, Fair Housing in a Changing Nation, 2012 Fair Housing Trends Report, discusses emerging fair housing trends affecting our country, which grows increasingly diverse and is expected to include a population with people of color in the majority by 2042.  According to the U.S. Census, people with disabilities already account for about 19 percent or 54 million people in the United States. That number is expected to grow over time. 

    While the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, familial status, sex and disability, Fair Housing in a Changing Nation reports that 44 percent of all housing discrimination complaints investigated by private groups in 2011 involved discrimination against people with disabilities. The report indicates that discrimination involving race accounted for about 19 percent of those complaints while familial status accounted for 13 percent and national origin and sex each accounted for over 5 percent of those complaints. It is important to note that disability complaints are high because many apartment owners make direct comments refusing to make reasonable accommodations or modifications for people with disabilities so it is easier to detect the discrimination.  Discrimination based on race, national origin and other protected classes is harder to detect but continues to be a pervasive problem that affects our nation's communities. Private fair housing organizations also reported more than 10 percent of their complaints involved discrimination against people not currently protected under the federal Fair Housing Act. For example, LGBT protections are not part of the federal law, but there are at least 20 states, the District of Columbia and more than 200 localities with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

  • May 14, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Melissa Rothstein, deputy director of the Equal Rights Center, and Megan K. Whyte, director of the Fair Housing Project at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. This is cross-posted at The Equal Rights Center’s blog.


    Fair Housing Month recently ended, and for most it was an opportunity to celebrate our country’s commitment to equal opportunity in housing for all people. Unfortunately, for some, it was instead another occasion for attacks on the crucial efforts to ensure enforcement of our country’s fair housing laws.

    In one such example, Congress launched an investigation into why the City of St. Paul withdrew an appeal in the Supreme Court that had the potential to eviscerate the validity of disparate impact challenges under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), despite the rulings of eleven federal circuit courts of appeal that uniformly held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. In another example, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested that, if elected president, he would consider disbanding the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an agency for which his father once served as Secretary.

    These actions come on the heels of a disturbing trend by federal courts of imposing additional hurdles on fair housing plaintiffs. Even in the face of efforts to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to enforce their statutory rights, the continuing role of fair housing organizations in enforcing the provisions of the FHA cannot be overstated. Private fair housing organizations and other civil rights groups investigate two out of every three fair housing complaints filed across the country – and their ability to enforce fair housing violations is critical to the promise of equal housing opportunity for all. These organizations are able to conduct investigations efficiently and effectively with little of the bureaucracy and overhead costs that may be associated with governmental agencies, and to gain the trust of disenfranchised community members who may not feel comfortable lodging a complaint with a government entity. 

    Officials at HUD and DOJ – the federal agencies with authority to enforce the FHA – recognize the importance and value of private enforcement, as they lack the resources to effectively enforce the FHA on their own. As detailed in our recent American Constitution Society Issue Brief, Congress intended for private enforcement to be a key component of ensuring FHA compliance, and the 1988 FHA amendments were largely intended to amend the law’s enforcement mechanism so that, in Senator Kennedy’s words, it would no longer be “a toothless tiger.”  

  • April 27, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Leslie Proll, Director of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund’s Washington Office


    The current foreclosure crisis constitutes a monumental civil rights issue. Communities of color were targeted for risky mortgage loans, have experienced disproportionately high foreclosure rates, and have been stripped of vast amounts of wealth because of discriminatory lending practices. From 2005 to 2009, median wealth fell by 66 percent among Latino households and 53 percent among African-American households, compared with just 16 percent among white households, largely due to declining home values. From 2009 through 2012, African Americans are projected to lose an estimated $194 billion in housing equity, and Latinos are expected to lose $177 billion.

    Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the destructive effects of the foreclosure crisis on communities of color have yet to be fully realized. They face another devastating blow caused by further discriminatory treatment towards homes and neighborhoods by the very lenders who initiated the foreclosures. 

    The civil rights problems that permeate the foreclosure crisis are unfolding in stages. First, lenders targeted communities of color with subprime and other risky loan products that led to foreclosure. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the largest residential fair lending settlement in history, in which Bank of America agreed to pay $335 million to settle allegations that Countrywide Financial discriminated against African-American and Latino borrowers during the housing boom. DOJ found that Countrywide loan officers and brokers charged higher fees and interest rates to 200,000 African-American and Latino borrowers than to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk. Countrywide also steered borrowers of color into costly subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. Countrywide was not an isolated example. Other research has found that African-American and Latino borrowers were much more likely to receive subprime loans than white borrowers, even after controlling for income level or credit risk. 

  • January 27, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy


    In January, communities throughout the United States join together to commemorate the life and contributions of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  It is around Dr. King’s birthday when many schoolchildren embrace the Civil Rights Movement, recite parts of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and truly understand that they can be whatever and whomever they want to be.  

    Most of us know the tragic tale of Dr. King’s assassination on April 4, 1968, but far too many people don’t know that Dr. King’s final legislative victory is one of his most enduring but largely ignored achievements.  Much of his work during the Chicago Freedom Movement in 1966 was an initiative to ensure just and equal access to quality housing for African-Americans. Dr. King’s historic march in Marquette Park laid the groundwork for our nation’s fair housing laws.  One week after Dr. King’s death, Congress passed the federal Fair Housing Act, a law that protects us from discrimination in housing based on race, religion, color, sex, national origin, familial status and disability. 

    The Fair Housing Act codifies the affirmative responsibility to end segregation and promote integration throughout the United States.  The National Fair Housing Alliance’s (NFHA) issue brief released this week by ACS, “The Promise of the Fair Housing Act and the Role of Fair Housing Organizations,” discusses Dr. King’s quest for fair housing and how fair housing organizations do their part to keep The Dream alive. 

    Today, the Fair Housing Act is a well-crafted tool that must continue to be sharpened in a nation that continues to grow and diversify.  Census projections indicate that in less than 30 years, our nation will be made up mostly of people of color. Yet, the nation our children grow up in today remains strikingly similar in some respects to the nation Dr. King was trying to change.  At the end of every school day, most children of all backgrounds return to segregated neighborhoods.  In neighborhoods of color, there are significantly fewer opportunities for children to reach their true potential.