Town of Huntington v. Huntington Branch, NAACP, case brief summary
488 U.S. 15 (1988)
CASE FACTS
The town had a zoning classification permitting private construction of multifamily housing projects only in the town's urban renewal area where the majority of residents were minorities. A private developer's request that the zoning code be amended to permit multifamily rental construction in a predominantly white section of town was rejected. The NAACP brought suit alleging that the town had violated Title VIII by refusing to amend the zoning code and by refusing to rezone the proposed building site.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court rejected the NAACP's claims. The court of appeals reversed as to both claims, holding that the NAACP had established a prima facie case of discriminatory impact, which the town had failed to rebut. It ordered the town to strike the zoning limitation and to rezone the project site. The town appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
488 U.S. 15 (1988)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellee local branch of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
filed a complaint against appellant town alleging, inter alia, that
the town's zoning ordinance violated Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968. The district court rejected the Title VIII claims, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, and
the town sought review.CASE FACTS
The town had a zoning classification permitting private construction of multifamily housing projects only in the town's urban renewal area where the majority of residents were minorities. A private developer's request that the zoning code be amended to permit multifamily rental construction in a predominantly white section of town was rejected. The NAACP brought suit alleging that the town had violated Title VIII by refusing to amend the zoning code and by refusing to rezone the proposed building site.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court rejected the NAACP's claims. The court of appeals reversed as to both claims, holding that the NAACP had established a prima facie case of discriminatory impact, which the town had failed to rebut. It ordered the town to strike the zoning limitation and to rezone the project site. The town appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court declined to review the refusal to rezone the project site as that portion of the case did not implicated the Court's mandatory jurisdiction.
- Without endorsing the disparate-impact test, the Court found that disparate impact was shown and that the justification proffered by the town to rebut the prima facie case was inadequate.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
No comments:
Post a Comment