oral arguments fair housing case

1

OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview

1 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

2 x

3 TEXASDEPARTMENTOF :

4 HOUSINGANDCOMMUNITY :

5 AFFAIRS,ETAL., :

6 Petitioners : No.131371

7 v. :

8 THEINCLUSIVECOMMUNITIES :

9 PROJECT,INC. :

10 x

11 Washington,D.C.

12 Wednesday,January21,2015

13

14 Theaboveentitledmattercameonfororal

15 argumentbeforetheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

16 at10:21a.m.

17 APPEARANCES:

18 SCOTTA.KELLER,ESQ.,SolicitorGeneralofTexas,

19 Austin,Tex.;onbehalfofPetitioners.

20 MICHAELM.DANIEL,ESQ.,Dallas,Tex.;onbehalfof

21 Respondent.

22 GEN.DONALDB.VERRILLI,JR.,SolicitorGeneral,

23 DepartmentofJustice,Washington,D.C.;forUnited

24 States,asamicuscuriae,onbehalfofRespondent.

25

AldersonReportingCompany

2


1 CONTENTS

2 ORALARGUMENTOF PAGE

3 SCOTTA.KELLER,ESQ.

4 3OnbehalfofthePetitioners

5 ORALARGUMENTOF

6 MICHAELM.DANIEL,ESQ.

7 OnbehalfoftheRespondent 25

8 ORALARGUMENTOF

9 GEN.DONALDB.VERRILLI,JR.,ESQ.

10 OnbehalfofUnitedStates,asamicuscuriae,

11 supportingRespondent 37

12 REBUTTALARGUMENTOF

13 SCOTTA.KELLER,ESQ.,

14 OnbehalfofthePetitioners 53

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3


1 PROCEEDINGS

2 (10:21a.m.)

3 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: We'llhearargument

4 firstthismorninginCase131371,theTexasDepartment

5 ofHousingandCommunityAffairsv.TheInclusive

6 CommunitiesProject.

7 Mr.Keller.

8 ORALARGUMENTOFSCOTTA.KELLER

9 ONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONERS

10 MR.KELLER: Thankyou,Mr.ChiefJustice,

11 andmayitpleasetheCourt:

12 TheFairHousingActdoesnotrecognize

13 disparateimpactclaims,first,becauseitsplaintext

14 doesn'tuseeffectsorresultsbasedlanguage,andwhen

15 astatuteprohibitsactionstakenbecauseofraceandit

16 lackseffectsbasedlanguage,thestatuteislimitedto

17 intentionaldiscrimination. And,second,thecanonof

18 constitutionalavoidancecompelsthisinterpretation.

19 Mostimportantly,theActdoesn'tusethephrase

20 "adverselyaffect." Smithv.CityofJackson,

21 recognizedthatthiseffectsbasedphrase

22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: AtthetimeofSmithand

23 Griggs,neithertheTitleVIInortheADEAusedthe

24 words"disparateimpact,"andyetwerecognizethey

25 applydisparateimpact.


4


1 MR.KELLER: Atthetime,disparatethe

2 words"disparateimpact"werenotused;however,the

3 words"adverselyaffect"wereused. AndWatson

4 subsequentlyinterpretedGriggsasfindingthetextual

5 hookfordisparateimpactliabilitywasbasedonthe

6 phrase"adverselyaffect."

7 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Youhaveaproblem,

8 becauseitsays"torefusetosellorrent,"etcetera,

9 "orotherwisemakeunavailable,"andtheagencycharged

10 withinterpretingthatlanguagehasdeterminedthatit

11 needsdisparateimpact.

12 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,thethe

13 phrase"makeunavailable"isanactprohibitedbythe

14 FairHousingAct. Itisanact

15 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Consequence. Ithappens

16 tobebecausethat'swhatyoudowithhousing,butit's

17 aconsequence.

18 MR.KELLER: Theactofmakingunavailablea

19 dwellingtoapersonistheactprohibitedbytheFair

20 HousingAct. Thisisn'tlikeSection4(a)(2)ofthe

21 ADEA,whereSmithsaiddisparateimpactlied. Thisis

22 likeSection4(a)(1)oftheADEA,becauseofthe

23 804(a)prohibitstherefusaltosellorrent,the

24 refusaltonegotiate,otherwisemakingunavailable,or

25 denying. Allofthoseareactiveverbs,andthey'reall


5


1 actsprohibited. Theworkthatisbeingdoneby

2 "otherwisemakeunavailable"istocoveradditional

3 acts,suchaszoningdecisionsorlanduserestrictions

4 thatarenotoutrightrefusalsoroutrightdenials. And

5 that'swhythelanguageoftheFairHousingActfocuses

6 onactions,noton

7 JUSTICESCALIA: Ofcourse,youcouldsay

8 thesamethingabout"adverselyaffect." Imean,that

9 alsoisanactiveverb,right? Anditalsoyouhad

10 toadverselyaffectbydiscriminating.

11 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Onthebasisof

12 JUSTICESCALIA: So,youknow,Ithe

13 pointsyoumakearearetrueenough,buttheywere

14 alsotruewithwithrespecttoTitleVII,weren't

15 they?

16 MR.KELLER: JusticeScalia,Idon'tbelieve

17 so. BecauseSection4(a)(2)andSection703(a)(2)ban

18 theactoflimiting,segregating,andclassifying. And

19 thentheycheckforacertainresult,somethingwhich

20 woulddeprive,tendtodeprive,oradverselyaffect.

21 Anditwasthatresultsoreffectscheckinglanguage

22 thatgaverisetodisparateimpactliability.

23 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Butafterthatlanguage

24 isthephrase"onthebasisof,"race,sex,whatever.

25 Soit'sadverselyaffectonthebasisofthewhatever


6


1 thecategory.

2 MR.KELLER: Well,andthatwasthe

3 interpretationthattheSmithpluralityandconcurrence

4 cametoonSection4(a)(2). ButinSection4(a)(1),the

5 phrase"becauseofrace"appears,andyouhaveactive

6 verbsthere. Youhave"refuse"and"otherwise

7 discriminate,"andtheCourtwasunanimousinfinding

8 thatSection4(a)(1)onlyrequiredintentional

9 discrimination,itdidnot

10 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Dodowetakeinto

11 accountatallthatinbothTitleVIIandtheFair

12 HousingAct,therewasagrandgoalthatCongresshadin

13 mind? Itmeanttoundogenerationsofrank

14 discrimination. AndwhatwasthephrasethatthisCourt

15 usedinTrafficantetodescribetheFairHousingAct?

16 Thatitsobjectivewastoreplaceghettosbyintegrating

17 "integratedlivingpatterns,"justasTitleVIIwas

18 meanttoundoalegacyofrankemployment

19 discrimination. Sodoesn'tthatpurposegiveaa

20 cluetowhatCongresswasafter?

21 MR.KELLER: Well,JusticeGinsburg,the

22 Courtneedstofocusontheplaintext. Andunlike

23 TitleVII,whichwaspassedin1964,andunlikethe

24 ADEA,whichwaspassedin1967,bothofwhichincluded

25 thephrase"adverselyaffect,"in1968whenCongress



7

1 passedtheFairHousingActitdidn'tusethatlanguage.

2 Instead,itprohibitedmakingunavailableadwellingto

3 anypersonbecauseofrace. Inincommonlanguageif

4 youweretosay,"Adammadeunavailableadwellingto

5 Bobbecauseofrace,"youask,well,whydidAdamact?

6 Heactedbecauseofrace,andracewasareasonforthe

7 action.

8 JUSTICEKAGAN: ButifIcouldunderstand

9 yourpoint,GeneralKeller,youagreewithJustice

10 Scaliathat"makeunavailable,"it'slike"adversely

11 affects,"they'rethey'rebothverbs. "Make

12 unavailable"isjustonewaytoadverselyaffect. And

13 whatyou'repinningyourargumentonistheseextra

14 addedwordsintheTitleVIIstatute,right? Sothat

15 it'sintheintheTitleVIIstatute,it's

16 can'tevenfindthem. YouknowwhatImean.

17 MR.KELLER: Ido,JusticeKagan.

18 JUSTICEKAGAN: Okay. SobutIdon't

19 Idon'tthinkthatthatcouldpossiblyberight,because

20 thenyouwouldbesayingthatitwouldbeadifferent

21 statuteif,insteadofjustsayinghereanemployer

22 can'tmakeunavailable,butinsteaditsaidanemployer

23 can'tactinawaythatmakesunavailable. Thatwould

24 makeitcompletelyparalleltotheTitleVIIandthe

25 ADEAstatutes.


8


1 Andandthosetwothingsjustcan'tmean

2 thesamething. Imean,allit'sdoingistotakeouta

3 fewwords,butit'ssayingtheexactsamething,which

4 iseitherway,anemployercan'tmakeunavailable.

5 MR.KELLER: JusticeKagan,Idon'tthink

6 it'ssayingthesamething. Andunderthereasoningof

7 Smith,itcan'tbesayingthesamething,because

8 Section4(a)(1),theCourtunanimouslyrecognized,

9 didn'tgiverisetodisparateimpactliability;andit

10 didn'thavethephrasethatappearedin4(a)(2)which

11 wascheckingtosee"inanywaywhichwoulddepriveor

12 tendtodepriveoradverselyaffect." Withoutthat

13 resultsbasedlanguage,youcan'thavedisparateimpact

14 liability. That'swhatRiccisaidandSandoval.

15 JUSTICEKAGAN: No,butthebutthething

16 that'sdifferentinthisstatuteisthe"make

17 unavailable,"whichfocusesonaneffectinthesameway

18 thatthe"adverselyaffect"languagedoes. Anditjust

19 doesitalittlebitmoreeconomically,butthe

20 effectsbasednatureoftheprovisionisstillthesame.

21 MR.KELLER: Itdoesn'tfocusonthe

22 effects. WhatSmithsaidwas4(a)(2)prohibitedtheact

23 oflimiting,segregating,andclassifying. ButSmith

24 saidthat'snotsimplywhatitwasprohibiting. Itwas

25 checkingtoseeiftherewasalsoadeprivationor


9


1 somethingthattendedtodepriveorsomethingthat

2 adverselyaffected,andthatwastheeffectsbased

3 language. Itwasn'tmerelydroppinginaphrasesuchas

4 "makeunavailable."

5 Allactionshaveconsequences,buthere

6 Congresschoseactiveverbs. AsMeyerv. Holley

7 recognized,theFairHousingActitselffocuseson

8 prohibitedacts.

9 JUSTICESCALIA: Make"makeunavailable"

10 isnotthesamelanguageas"adverselyaffect."

11 That'sthat'sallthatI'mwillingtoconcede.

12 AndIthinkifyouthoughtthatSmithwas

13 wrong,whichmanypeopledo,Isupposeyoucouldargue

14 wewillnotexpandSmith. AndSmithhungonparticular

15 words,"adverselyaffect." Thosewordsdon'texist

16 here,and,therefore,sincewethinkSmithwaswrong

17 anyway,we'renotgoingtoextendit. That'sthat's

18 areasonableargument,butthat'snottheargument

19 you'remaking.

20 Whatwhathangsmeupisnotsomuchthat

21 asitisthefactthatCongressseeminglyacknowledged

22 theeffectstestinlaterlegislationwhenitsaidthat

23 certaineffectswillnotqualify. YouknowwhatI'm

24 referringto?

25 MR.KELLER: Yes,JusticeScalia.


10


1 JUSTICESCALIA: Well,whydoesn'tthat

2 whydoesn'tthatkillyourcase? Imean,whenwelook

3 ataaprovisionoflaw,welookattheentire

4 provisionoflaw,includinglateramendments. Wetryto

5 makesenseofthelawasawhole.

6 Now,youseethisstatutewhichwhichhas

7 otherwisewhatismakeunavailable,anditalsohas,

8 however,itwillnotbeaviolationiftheseeffects

9 areareyoureadthosetogetherandyousay,wow,

10 thisthislawmustmeanmereeffectsqualify.

11 MR.KELLER: JusticeScalia,the1988

12 amendments,inenactingthreeexceptionsfromliability,

13 thoseprovisionsmerelyrestrictedliability,andthe

14 Courtrejectedavirtuallyidenticalargumenttowhat

15 theRespondentandtheSolicitorGeneralaremakingin

16 O'Gilviev.UnitedStates. It'sacasethatappearsat

17 519U.S.79.

18 JUSTICESCALIA: Isthisinyourbrief?

19 MR.KELLER: Thecasewasnotcitedinour

20 brief.

21 JUSTICESCALIA: Oh,I'msorry.

22 MR.KELLER: AtPage89ofthatdecision

23 JUSTICESCALIA: Yeah.

24 MR.KELLER: theCourtnotedthat

25 Congressmightsimplyhavewantedtoclarifythematter


11


1 inrespecttothenarrowexemption,butitwantedto

2 leavethelawwhereitfounditinrespecttothe

3 broaderissue.

4 JUSTICEKAGAN: Butthelawwhereitfound

5 itherewasveryclear,becausetencircuitshadgone

6 theotherwayandhadsaidthatdisparateimpactwasa

7 validactionundertheFHA. Soleavingthelawwhere

8 youfoundit,andwepresumethatCongressknowsthe

9 law,especiallywhenthelawisthatclearandthat

10 uniform,means,yes,therewillbedisparateimpact

11 actionsexceptinthesethreecircumstanceswhichwe're

12 goingtolayoutforyouveryclearlyandvery

13 precisely.

14 MR.KELLER: JusticeKagan,in1988the

15 stateofthelawwasinflux. TheSolicitorGeneral

16 filedabriefinthisCourtsayingthattheFairHousing

17 Actonlyprohibitedactsofintentionaldiscrimination.

18 Andtwomonthsbeforetheamendments,thisCourtdecided

19 inWatsonandemphasizedthatthephrase"adversely

20 affect"wasthelanguagethatgaveriseto

21 disparateimpactliability. AndifCongresswouldhave

22 takeifCongresswasassumedtohaveknownthatthis

23 Court'sprecedentswereinplace,then

24 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Howdoyouput

25 "adverselyaffect"? Didtheyhavetowriteit"or



12

1 otherwiseadverselyaffectsomeonebymakingthehousing

2 unavailable"?

3 MR.KELLER: Otherwise

4 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Imean,it'salittle

5 crazy,don'tyouthink,becauseotherwiseadversely

6 affectingsomeonebymakingitunavailable. Ithink

7 it'sotherwisemakeunavailable

8 MR.KELLER: Well,otherwiseitcould

9 have

10 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: istheshortformof

11 that.

12 MR.KELLER: Orotherwiselimithousing

13 opportunitiesinawaythatwouldadverselyaffect.

14 Congresscouldhaveusedthesamelanguagethatappeared

15 inTitleVII.

16 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Butinsteadwhatitdid,

17 ittookabodyoflaw,someofwhichhadheldsome

18 practicesasdisparatelyimproperlydisparately

19 impacting,likedrugaddictionandothersandtwo

20 others,andsaid,no,thosetwowon'tcount,thosethree

21 won'tcount. Yourreadingofthosethreeexemptionsis

22 theywereunnecessary.

23 MR.KELLER: Well,theywereabsolutely

24 doingworkin1988,andCongresscouldtakeaccountof

25 thefacttheCourt


13


1 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,whatdoyoumake

2 ofin1988wheresomeonewantedtodoawaywith

3 disparateimpactandCongressdidn'ttakeupthat

4 invitation?

5 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,Ibelieve

6 you'rereferringtoRepresentativeSwindall'samendment.

7 AndthemerefactthatCongressdidn'tenacta

8 provision,thisCourthasnotlookedtoinreviewinga

9 statute.

10 JUSTICESCALIA: Butwhatyou're

11 you'retellingusthattheseamendmentswhichsaidthat

12 certaintypesofeffectswillnotqualify,thatthe

13 purposeofthatamendmentwastopreventerroneouscourt

14 ofappeals'decisionsfromaffectingthoseparticular

15 areas?

16 MR.KELLER: JusticeScalia,that'spartof

17 theworkthatthey'redoing.

18 JUSTICESCALIA: That'saverystrangething

19 forCongresstodo,tobelievethatthosecourtof

20 opinionscourtofappeals'opinionsarewrongandyet

21 totoenacttheseexemptions. Soeventhoughthose

22 opinionsarewrong,theywillnotapplytothesethings.

23 Ithat'sverystrange.

24 MR.KELLER: Well,in1988,whenCongress

25 waslegislating,itagreedononething,andthatwasin


14


1 thesethreenarrowcircumstances,liabilitywouldbe

2 restrictedundertheFairHousingAct. Itwouldbe

3 extremelyoddtoreadintoarestrictionofliabilitya

4 recognitionofamassiveexpansionofFairHousingAct

5 liability,andCongressdoesnothideelephantsinmouse

6 holes.

7 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Exactly. Andten

8 circuitshadalreadysaidtherewasdisparateimpact.

9 Iftheydidn'tlikethedisparateimpactanalysis,they

10 wouldhavetakenupthecongressman'sproposal. But

11 theydidn't.

12 MR.KELLER: InthebriefthattheSolicitor

13 Generalfiledin1988,itmadethepoint,whichis

14 absolutelythesametoday,whichisCongressknowshow

15 toenactaneffecttest.

16 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Itchangedwhenno,

17 no,no. When1988happened,theSolicitorGeneral

18 changeditsposition,andithasbeenconsistentsince

19 then,thatwhenCongressadoptedthethreeexemptions,

20 ititrecognizeddisparateimpactasapplyingtothe

21 FairHousingAct. Thatintentionalbriefwasnotin

22 1988andnotinitwasafterthatwasbefore1988,

23 the1988amendments.

24 MR.KELLER: Ititwasbeforethe1988

25 amendments,that'sright. ButthisCourtwas


15


1 consideringtheissueinTownofHuntingtonandafter

2 theamendment. SowhileCongresswaspassingthe1988

3 amendments,thisCourthasacasewheretheissuewas

4 raisedanditwasactivelyconsideringit.

5 AndCongress

6 JUSTICEALITO: Well,General,Ithought

7 yourargumentonthe1988amendmentswasasfollows:

8 EitherthetheFairHousingActcontemplated

9 disparateimpactanalysiswhenitwasadoptedin,when

10 wasit,1968oritdidn't. Andthe1988amendments,

11 whichmadeitclearthattherecouldnotbe

12 disparateimpactanalysiswithrespecttocertain

13 matterssurelydidn'texpandthescopeofthe19of

14 whatwasinitiallyenacted. Sotheissueiswhatdid

15 Congressintend,whatwhatisthemeaningoftheAct

16 asoriginallyenacted. Ithoughtthatwasyour

17 argument.

18 MR.KELLER: Precisely,JusticeAlito. The

19 1968Act

20 JUSTICEGINSBURG: ButIfwe'regoingtobe

21 realisticaboutthis,in1964,whentheCivilRightsAct

22 passed,andin1968,whentheFairHousingActpassed,

23 nobodyknewanythingaboutdisparateimpact. That

24 didn'tcomeuptilltheGriggsdecision,anditwasthis

25 CourtthatgavethatinterpretationtoTitleVIIin


16


1 lightofthepurposeofthestatute.

2 Sototrytolookbackandsay,oh,didthey

3 meandisparateimpactin'64,whenGriggswasn'tonthe

4 bookstill'71,it'salittleartificial,don'tyou

5 think?

6 MR.KELLER: TheCourthastoconstruethe

7 plaintextofthestatutethatCongressenacted,andthe

8 textin1964didnotuseeffects

9 JUSTICESCALIA: Ithasto

10 MR.KELLER: Sorry.

11 JUSTICESCALIA: Ithastoconstruethe

12 plaintextofthelaw,andthelawconsistsnotjustof

13 whatCongressdidin1968,butalsowhatitdidin'88.

14 Andyoulookatthewholelawandyousay,whatmakes

15 sense? Andifyoureadthosethosetwoprovisions

16 together,itseemstobeanacknowledgmentthatthereis

17 suchathingasdisparateimpact. However,itwillnot

18 applyintheseareasthatthe1988amendmentsays. We

19 don'tjustlookateachlittlepiecewhenitwas

20 seriallyenactedandsaywhatdidCongressthinkin

21 in'68? Whatdiditthinkin'72? Welookatthelaw.

22 Andthelawincludesthe'68actandthe'88amendments.

23 AndIIfindithardtoreadthosetwotogetherin

24 anyotherwaythanthereissuchathingasdisparate

25 impact.



17

1 MR.KELLER: The1988amendmentsdon'trefer

2 todisparateimpact. ThisisnotliketheTitleVII

3 1991amendmentthatexplicitlyusedthewords"disparate

4 impact."

5 JUSTICEKAGAN: Ofcoursenot,but

6 JUSTICESCALIA: Buttheymakenosense

7 unlessthereissuchathingasdisparateimpact.

8 It'stheyareprohibitingsomethingthatdoesn't

9 exist,right? Imean,you'resayingthattheyprohibit

10 somethingthatdoesn'texist.

11 MR.KELLER: Theycoulddomorework. They

12 doworkindisparatetreatmentcases. Takethe

13 occupancyexemption. TheFairHousingActalso

14 prohibitsthefailuretomakeaccommodationsbasedon

15 disability. Theoccupancyexemptionisgoingtodowork

16 inthatcase. ThisiswhyinCityofEdmonds,the

17 Courtnotedthatthesewereexemptionswerecomplete

18 exemptionsfromFHAscrutiny. Congressdidn'tsaythat

19 itwaslimitingthesetodisparateimpact. Itsaidwe

20 don'twanttheseclaimstogoforward.

21 JUSTICEBREYER: Soyouhaveanargument,

22 andsodoestheothersidehaveanargument. ButI

23 don'twantyounottohavethechancetoanswerwhatto

24 meisaprettyimportantquestion. Saytherearegood

25 argumentsonbothsides. Thelawhasbeenagainstyou.



18

1 There'sbeendisparateimpactfor40years. Now,letme

2 befair. Maybeit'sonly35. Andit'suniversally

3 againstyou. AndasfarasIcantell,theworldhasn't

4 cometoanend.

5 Imean,theformofthequestionI'mputting

6 iswell,maybeMarburyv.Madisonwaswrong. Idon't

7 thinkitwas. Butnonetheless,nonetheless,thishas

8 beenthelawoftheUnitedStatesuniformlythroughout

9 theUnitedStatesfor35years,itisimportant,andall

10 thehorriblesthatarepainteddon'tseemtohave

11 happenedoratleastwehavesurvivedthem.

12 SowhyshouldthisCourtsuddenlycomein

13 andreverseanimportantlawwhichseemstohaveworked

14 outinawaythatishelpfultomanypeople,hasnot

15 produceddisaster,onthebasisofgoingbackandmaking

16 afinelyspunargumentonthebasisofatextthatwas

17 passedmanyyearsagoandisambiguousatbest?

18 MR.KELLER: Ifyouweretobelievethe

19 statute'sambiguous

20 JUSTICEBREYER: Oh,well,Idon'tthink.

21 Mygoodness,ifitisn'tambiguous,itwouldbe

22 surprisingbecausetencircuitcourtsofappealshave

23 allinterpreteditthewayoppositeyouandItakeit

24 youdon'tmeanit'sunambiguousontheirside.

25 (Laughter.)



19

1 MR.KELLER: In1988,theamendmentsdidn't

2 touchthetextofthe1968FairHousingAct

3 JUSTICEBREYER: No,no. Idon'twantyou

4 toifyou'lldomethefavorofansweringmy

5 question.

6 MR.KELLER: Sure.

7 JUSTICEBREYER: Whichisthequestionthat

8 it'sbeenthelawfor40yearsofjustalittlebit

9 less,disasterhasnotoccurred,andwhywhensomething

10 issowellestablishedthroughouttheUnitedStates

11 shouldthisCourtcomeinandchangeit.

12 MR.KELLER: Thereisaseriousequal

13 protectionquestionlurkinghere. Andastowhyyou

14 wouldchangeit,disparateimpactliabilityandwhereit

15 leadsisbeingappliedinacaselikethisinMagnerv.

16 Gallagher. Texasherewastryingtogiveadditional

17 JUSTICEBREYER: Youdon'tlikethewayit

18 wasapplied,andIcanunderstandthat. Butthereare

19 manyremediesthatyouhave. OneisyougotoHUDand

20 yousay,lookatwhatishappening;thisishappeningto

21 havetheoppositeeffectthatyouwant. That'soneof

22 yourarguments. Well,trytoconvincethem.

23 Andifnotthere,yougotoacourtandsay:

24 Court,thisisadisparateimpactcase,andwehavea

25 justificationandthejustificationisstrongenough


20


1 thatitsurvivestheempiricaleffect,andyouseeif

2 youcangetthemtoagree. Youmaywin;youmaylose.

3 Butwhatnottodoistooverturnthewhole

4 lawthathasbeenineffect,I'llrepeatforthe

5 nineteenththtime,for40yearswithbasicallyhelpful

6 effect. Now,that'saquestion. Itdidn'tsoundlike

7 one,butitwasone.

8 (Laughter.)

9 JUSTICEBREYER: SoI'dliketohearwhat

10 yousay.

11 MR.KELLER: Sure. Theequalprotection

12 concernsherearestark. First,thegovernmenthasnot

13 explainedifit'sgoingtoenforcetheHUDregulationto

14 protectonlyminorities. Ifitdoes,that'slikely

15 unconstitutionalunderAdderandandifitdoesn't,

16 that'sgoingtointerferewithFederalandState

17 programsthathelplowerincomeneighborhoods.

18 JUSTICESCALIA: MaybeI'mmissingsomething

19 here.

20 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: How

21 JUSTICESCALIA: Didn'tthisCourtdecide

22 Marburyv.Madison?

23 MR.KELLER: Absolutely,JusticeScalia.

24 JUSTICEBREYER: Myquestionwasnotreally

25 aboutMarbury.


21


1 JUSTICESCALIA: Imean,isn'tthatabig

2 difference,Imean,betweenthesituationhere? This

3 Courthasneverdecidedthisissue. It'sjustthelower

4 courtshavehavedecideditinauniformfashion.

5 Haveweeverbeforereverseduniformholdingsofof

6 courtsofappeals,eventhosethathavelasted30years?

7 Theanswerisyes.

8 MR.KELLER: Youhaverejectedthe

9 overwhelmingconsensusofthecourtsofappeals.

10 JUSTICEBREYER: That'swhyIaskedthe

11 question. Isaidwhy. Why? I'mnotsayingyou

12 couldn'tdoit. I'msimplysayingwhy. AndIdon't

13 wanttorepeatmyquestionforthefourthtime,andyou

14 begantogiveananswerandtheansweryoubegantogive

15 wasbasedonaconstitutionalproblemthathasarisen.

16 AndI'vetakenthatinandreadit,anddoyouhave

17 otheranswersornot? Iwantyoufullytoanswerthe

18 question.

19 MR.KELLER: Sure. Theplaintextofthe

20 statuteisclear. Constitutionalavoidancecompelsthat

21 interpretation,andthepurposesoftheFairHousingAct

22 wouldbeunderminedbyextendingdisparateimpact

23 liabilitytothisdegree.

24 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,you'renowtalking

25 aboutapplication. Andlet'sgobackto,youmadea


22


1 statementearlierthatthisisgoingtoinhibit

2 developmentofblightedareas. Thathastodowiththe

3 applicationinthiscase. IfI'mrightaboutthetheory

4 ofdisparateimpact,andIcantellyouI'vestudiedit

5 verycarefully,itsintentistoensurethatanyonewho

6 isrentingorsellingpropertyormakingitunavailable

7 isdoingsonotonthebasisofartificial,arbitraryor

8 unnecessaryhurdles,policiesorpractices,andit'sthe

9 Petitionerwhohastoidentifywhichtheyare,andto

10 explainwhyalternativeswouldn'twork.

11 Ifsomeone'sdevelopingablightedareaor

12 anareasubjecttocrimeorsomethingelse,that's

13 somethingtheycandoandthat'sacriteria,apolicy

14 thatcan'tbesubstitutedforsomethingelse. SoI

15 don'tknowwhyyoukeepsayingthisisgoingtoaffect

16 privatedevelopment.

17 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,inin

18 Ricci,theCourtreservedthequestionwhether

19 disparateimpactliabilityinrequiringracebased

20 decisionmakingwouldviolatetheequalprotection

21 clause,andthereisa

22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Butthisisnot

23 racebaseddecisionmaking. Areyousayingthatthe10

24 percentplaninincollegesisracebasedifit'san

25 absolutelyneutralpolicythathappenstoaddressa


23


1 need,whichistointegrateschools?

2 MR.KELLER: Butthe

3 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Sowhyisitwrongto

4 haveaneutralpolicy? Becausenoneofthepolicies

5 thatwereimposedhereandinmostinallothercases

6 areracebased. They'repoliciesthatareraceneutral,

7 buthappentohaveabetterimpactintermsof

8 integration.

9 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,Iwould

10 disagreethatit'scompletelyraceneutral,becauseat

11 theoutset,statisticaldisparitiesbasedonrace,

12 racialclassifications,areusedandthishasthe

13 potentialtosubordinatetraditional

14 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,that

15 JUSTICESCALIA: Whichisnotthecasefor

16 the10percentplanthatTexasuses.

17 MR.KELLER: Absolutely,JusticeScalia.

18 JUSTICESCALIA: There'snoracialthingin

19 that. Ifyou'reinthetop10percentofyourhigh

20 schoolclass,yougototheStateuniversity.

21 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Whatwasthereason

22 for

23 JUSTICESCALIA: Noraceaboutit.

24 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Whatwasthereasonfor

25 it? Youcansayit'saneutral,10percentisneutral;


24


1 butit'sjustglaringinthefacethatthelegislature

2 thatpassedthiswasverymuchraceconscious. Itwas

3 thewaythattheysawofgettingaminoritypopulation

4 intocolleges.

5 Idon'tthinkthere'sreallyadoubtthat

6 factuallythat'swhatpromptedthe10percentplan.

7 WhentheUniversityofTexaswastolditsaffirmative

8 actionplanwasnogood,thenthelegislaturecameback

9 withthe10percentplan.

10 MR.KELLER: Butthere'sadifference

11 betweenthatraceconsciousdecisionmakingand,here,a

12 situationwhereliabilityistriggeredbasedon

13 statisticaldisparities.

14 That'swhytheWatsonplurality,Justice

15 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: It'snotliabilityis

16 notwell,"triggered"isagoodword;butit'snot

17 imposedbecauseofthat. It'simposedbecausethelower

18 courtfound,rightlyorwronglyIdon'twanttoget

19 intothemeritsofthatthatsomeofthecriteria

20 beingusedwaswereunnecessaryandthatwasand

21 therewasnolegitimatebusinessreasonforit.

22 Icould,asJusticeBreyersaid,quarrel

23 withthatconclusion;butthat'sinapplication. That's

24 notinthestandardthatdisparateimpactimposes.

25 MR.KELLER: Butwhatobjectivestandardis


25


1 theretomeasurewhethersomethingisasubstantial

2 interestinthehousingcontext? Andthat'swhy

3 disparateimpactliabilitycanleadtothefunctional

4 equivalentofaquotasystem. That'swhattheWatson

5 pluralitysaid,WardsCove,andJusticeScalia's

6 concurrenceinRicci.

7 Mr.ChiefJustice,ifIcouldreservethe

8 remainderofmytimeforrebuttal.

9 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,counsel.

10 Mr.Daniel.

11 ORALARGUMENTOFMICHAELM.DANIEL

12 ONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

13 MR.DANIEL: Mr.ChiefJustice,andmayit

14 pleasetheCourt:

15 Theremedyinthiscaseisperfectly

16 consistentwiththeinterestinrevitalizinglowincome,

17 minorityareas. Theremedyinthiscaseshowsthat

18 thereisnothingabouttheFairHousingAct

19 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: We'renottalkingabout

20 thiscase.

21 MR.DANIEL: No. I'mjustusingitasan

22 example.

23 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Allright. Whydon't

24 yougettothelegalissue,ifyoucould.

25 MR.DANIEL: Thelegalissueis


26


1 "unavailable." Unavailableisaresultoriented

2 measure. Youlooktoseehowmanyunitsareavailable

3 inanarea. Youcountthem. Thatistheresult. How

4 manyunitsareavailableinanotherarea? Youcount

5 them. That'saresult.

6 It'sclearfromtheCongressionalRecord

7 Congresswasworriedandconcernedaboutmakingunits

8 onlyavailableinlowincome,minorityareasthatit

9 called"ghettos." Theremedythatitwanted

10 JUSTICESCALIA: Itisn'tthe"unavailable"

11 wordthat'stheproblem. Theproblemisunavailableon

12 thebasisofrace. Youcansay"unavailable"amillion

13 times,butthestatuterequiresthatitbemade

14 unavailableforracialreasons.

15 Andyou'resaying,no,itdoesn'thaveto

16 be;itcouldbeunavailablesimplybecauseyouusesome

17 othernonracialreason,whichisstupid,right? That's,

18 that'syourargument. Ifitproducesaresultthat

19 isisnotwhat,Idon'tknowthattheraces

20 havetobeinthesameproportionastheyareinthe

21 generalpopulation. Right? Imean,that'swhatyou're

22 arguing.

23 MR.DANIEL: Theargumentisthatif,in

24 fact,racialdiscriminationisaforeseeableconsequence

25 ofwhatsomeoneisdoing


27


1 JUSTICESCALIA: No,no,no,no. Racial

2 disparityisnotracialdiscrimination. Thefactthat

3 theNFLisislargelyblackplayersisnot

4 discrimination. Discriminationrequiresintentionally

5 excludingpeopleofacertainrace.

6 MR.DANIEL: Itcertainlyincludesthat,

7 Justice

8 JUSTICESCALIA: Solet'snotlet'snot

9 equateracialdisparitywithdiscrimination. Thetwo

10 arequitedifferent,andwhatyou'rearguinghereis

11 thatracialdisparityisenoughtomaketomake

12 whateverthepolicyadoptedunlawful,right?

13 MR.DANIEL: No,JusticeScalia. That'snot

14 whattheargumentis;andthat'snotwhat'sinthe

15 argument,it'snotwhat'sintheregulations.

16 Theargumentis,isthatifI'mgoingto

17 makeadisparatetreatmentcasethatthereis

18 intentionaldiscrimination,I'mgoingtostartwiththe

19 effects,justthesameplaceIstartwithadisparate

20 impact. Istartwiththeeffects: Hastherebeenan

21 effectthatisconsistentwithdiscrimination?

22 Indisparateimpact,Ithengoontothe

23 nextstep: Isthereaninterestthatjustifiesthe

24 discriminatoryeffect? Itcouldbethesame

25 discriminatoryeffectthatiscausedbyintentional


28


1 discrimination.

2 JUSTICEKAGAN: Mr.Daniel,Ihadthought

3 thatJusticeScalia'squestionwaswhetherthe"because

4 of"languageprecludesadisparateimpacttheory;in

5 otherwords,whetherthe"becauseof"languagesignals

6 thatithastohaveacertainkindofintentwhichis

7 notpartofadisparatetreatment,adisparateimpact

8 theory.

9 AndIwouldhavethoughtthatyourmain

10 argumentaboutthatis,well,actually,theCourthas

11 heldnumeroustimes,intheTitleVIIcontext,inthe

12 ADEAcontext,intheRehabilitationActcontext,inthe

13 EmergencySchoolAidActcontext,thatthat"becauseof"

14 languagecanbereadtoincludedisparateimpactclaims,

15 andthatit'satleastambiguousastowhetheritshould

16 bereadsointhiscaseastothisparticularstatute.

17 MR.DANIEL: Yes,JusticeKagan.

18 JUSTICEKAGAN: Imean,isthatyour

19 argument,orisyourargumentsomethingelse?

20 MR.DANIEL: Thatisthebasicargumenton

21 "becauseof,"thatithasbeeninterpretedbothways;

22 andinTitleVIIandinSmith,itdidnotrequireproof

23 ofintent. Inthiscase

24 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: How

25 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldyou


29


1 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: I'msorry. Ifyou

2 wantto,youcancompleteyouranswertoJusticeKagan.

3 Itwasnotahardquestion.

4 MR.DANIEL: No,ChiefJustice.

5 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Howisahousing

6 authoritysupposedtoifyouhaveaclaimof

7 disparateimpact,howisahousingauthoritysupposedto

8 curetheallegedproblem?

9 MR.DANIEL: Assumingthatyougothrough

10 thestepsandthatthereis,infact,aneedtocurethe

11 problem

12 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldyou

13 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Well,I'msorry,I'm

14 sorry. Youhavemadeashowingofdisparateimpact,

15 thattheimpactandadverseconsequencesfora

16 particularrace.

17 Whatisthehousingauthoritysupposedtodo

18 atthatpoint?

19 MR.DANIEL: Atthatpoint,thehousing

20 authorityistosay,thisiswhatinterestwehavethat

21 isservedbythediscriminatorypracticecausingthe

22 racialsegregation. That'swhatandtheysay,it

23 whateverthatinterestisandtheysayit,thatthis

24 isthisinterestjustifiesourpracticethatwe're

25 doing.



30

1 Atthatpointintime,wecomebackandsay:

2 Butthereareotherwaystodoitthatareless

3 discriminatory.

4 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Isthere

5 MR.DANIEL: And

6 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Isthereawayto

7 avoidadisparateimpactconsequencewithouttakingrace

8 intoaccountincarryingoutthegovernmentalactivity?

9 Itseemstomethatiftheobjectionisthat

10 therearen'tasufficientnumberofminoritiesina

11 particularproject,youhavetolookattheraceuntil

12 yougetwhateveryouregardastherighttarget.

13 MR.DANIEL: Youdon'thavetolookatthe

14 raceatall. Youlookatthepracticecausingit;and

15 youstopthepractice,likeinthiscaseorlikeinthe

16 zoningcase.

17 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Well,whatwas,infact,

18 theremedy? Imean,thiswasacasewheretherewas

19 litigation,youprevailed,andtherewasaremedy. So

20 therewasdisparateimpact.

21 AndwhatdidtheCourtsayhadtobedoneto

22 cureit,tocurewhatitsawastheoffensetotheFair

23 HousingAct?

24 MR.DANIEL: Itsaidithadtostopthe

25 discriminatoryhousingpracticeandthenithadto


31


1 thenitorderedinplacetheremedysuggestedbythe

2 Statethatwas,infact,thelessdiscriminatory

3 alternative,toalargeextent,towhattheyhadbeen

4 doing.

5 There'snoracialgoalsinit,there'sno

6 raceconsciousinit,there'snoracialcriteriainit.

7 Itisathereisanditistheremedythatthe

8 Statesayswillworktostopthediscriminatory

9 practice.

10 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldwegoback?

11 MR.DANIEL: Infact

12 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldwegoback? I

13 thinkyou'vebeeninterrupted.

14 Thestepsare: Firstyoushowthat

15 there'sthatthenumbersareoff. Thentheother

16 sidetellsyouwhatthereasonisforwhythenumbers

17 areoff.

18 You,then,haveanopportunityoran

19 obligationtocomeandsuggestalternativemethodsof

20 takingcareofthelegitimatebusinessneed. Correct?

21 MR.DANIEL: Yes,JusticeSotomayor.

22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Soyouthosearethe

23 threesteps?

24 MR.DANIEL: Yes.

25 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Ifyoucanproposeways


32


1 thatareraceneutral,practicesthat`areraceneutral

2 thatwillhavetakecareoftheirneeds,meaningthe

3 otherside'sneeds,thenyougetrelief.

4 MR.DANIEL: And,forexample,oneofthe

5 waysproposedwas: Donotcontinueputtingprojects

6 nexttolandfillsandhazardousindustrialuses. That

7 was

8 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Don'tyouhaveatension

9 betweentwostatuteshere? Imean,youhavetheFair

10 HousingAct;andthenthereisthelawthatsetsupthis

11 taxcredit,right? Anddoesn'tthatlawsaythatthere

12 shouldbeapriorityforrevitalizingdecaying

13 communities?

14 MR.DANIEL: Thelawspecificallysaysthat

15 thereshouldbeapreferenceamongalltheprojectsthat

16 aregoingtobeawardedforapplicationsthatcontribute

17 toaconcertedcommunityrevitalizationplan. That

18 preferenceishonoredintheremedyanditisinthe

19 remedy. Ifyouareifanapplicationis

20 concertingiscontributingtoaconcertedcommunity

21 revitalizationplanjustlikeintheIRScode,thenit

22 getsthesamepointsasaaprojectthatisgoingto

23 beinahigherincome,lowpovertyareawithgood

24 schools.

25 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Whyshouldn'titgetmore


33


1 ifthetaxlawexpressesthatpreferenceforthe

2 revitalization?

3 MR.DANIEL: JusticeGinsburg,itcouldif

4 theStatesetitupthatway. TheStatejusthasn'tset

5 itupthatway. TheStatecouldsetitupsothat

6 there'sapoolofunitsthataregoingtobeawarded

7 projectsandpickoutofthereandgivepreferenceto

8 thoseconcertedcommunityrevitalizationplans.

9 ThedistrictcourtfoundthattheStatedid

10 notdothat. TheStateinsteadgaveatwopointone

11 ortwopointselectioncriteriabonusforthatkindof

12 project. That'sthat'sbutthat'saStatechoice.

13 JUSTICEBREYER: CanyougobacktoJustice

14 Scalia'squestion,please? BecauseItookbecauseI

15 justwanttohearyouranswertoit.

16 AsIunderstoodhisquestion,itwasyou

17 lookatthewordsandthewordssay,"makeunavailable

18 becauseofrace." Andwhatyou'resayingisthose

19 words,"makeunavailablebecauseofrace,"caninclude

20 thecircumstancewhereyoumakeunavailableforareason

21 thathasnothingtodowithracewheretheeffectof

22 thatreasonistocausearacialdisparityof

23 significanceanditcannotbejustifiedastheleast

24 restrictivewaytobringaboutit. That'sthepoint.

25 Butyou'resayingthosewordsareconsistent


34


1 withthelongerphraseIjustsaid. Okay. Isthere

2 caselaworother,asidefromthisarea,whichbuilds

3 yourpointandsays,yes,thosewordslinguisticallyand

4 legallydoincludethedisparateimpactsituation,or

5 can. Itakeitthat'shisquestionandIwaslooking

6 MR.DANIEL: ThisCourt

7 JUSTICEBREYER: forananswersomewhat

8 along

9 MR.DANIEL: AndthisCourt

10 JUSTICEBREYER: thoselinesorany

11 other

12 MR.DANIEL: ThisCourt'stwomajoropinions

13 onthisare,ofcourse,GriggsandSmith. Thesame

14 issuewaswrestledwithwiththeothercourtswhohave

15 foundthesamethinginthecourtsofappeals,wrestling

16 withthisbecauseof,anditisatleastadmitsthat

17 itisaaitcanit'sapermissiblereading

18 eitherway.

19 JUSTICEALITO: InSmith,however,the

20 Courtthepluralityopinioncitedtwoadditional

21 things. Itdidn'tjustsay"becauseof"canmean

22 disparateimpact. Itcitedtheeffectslanguage,which

23 wasthesubjectofsomequestioningduringGeneral

24 Keller'sargument,butitalsocitedtheRFOAprovision.

25 Now,noneofneitherofthoseIthink


35


1 thelatterismoresignificantandthere'snothinglike

2 thatinTitleVIII,isthere?

3 MR.DANIEL: Theexemptionsareare

4 similarinthefactthatwhatthosetheydothe

5 RFOAinSmithcameinandbasicallysaidevenifyou

6 havedisparateimpactonthesefactors,ifit'sa

7 reasonablefactorotherthanage,we'regoingtoexcuse

8 thedisparateimpact. Okay. Nowthetheexemptions

9 speaktothedisparateimpactandthere'snonothing

10 intherethatsaysthatthere'sthatyouusebythe

11 reasonthatyoucanexcuse,thatthosedon'tcount

12 JUSTICEALITO: Soisthatcriticaltoyour

13 argument? Thattheexemptionsarecriticaltoyour

14 argument?

15 MR.DANIEL: Wewethinktheexemptions

16 aretexttosupporttheuseofadisparateimpact

17 liability. Wethinkthere'salotofotherthings. The

18 statutoryconstructionusedinthecongressionalrecord,

19 whattheCongresswantedtodo,3601,whichCongress

20 passedtosayandhasbeenusedtogiveanexpansive

21 interpretationinmattersofstandingandenforcement.

22 Wethinkthoseallthosetoolsofstatutory

23 constructioncombinetomakeitatleastpermissible

24 and,therefore,givingduedeferencetotheHUD

25 regulation.


36


1 JUSTICEALITO: Iftherewasnodisparate

2 impactundertheActasinitiallyenacted,doyouargue

3 thattheexemptionsexpandedtheActsothatitthen,as

4 of1988,includeddisparateimpact?

5 MR.DANIEL: Well,itiftherewasnone

6 then,therethereindicatedthe1988Congress

7 thoughttherewas. Wedon'tthinkyoucanlookatwhat

8 Congressdidin1968andsaytheydidnotintendto

9 covereffects. Theysayittimeandtimeagain.

10 JUSTICEALITO: Well,thatwasn'treallymy

11 question. WhatCongressthoughttheActmeantin1988

12 wouldn'thaveanysignificancewouldn'thavemuch

13 significanceiftheyhadn'tdoneanything,wouldit?

14 MR.DANIEL: No,Ithinktheyweredoingit

15 in1988,thatcountsfor1988. Wethinkthatitthey

16 haddoneitbefore.

17 JUSTICEALITO: Allright. Sodidwhat

18 theydidthethingsthattheyactuallydidin1988

19 expandthecoverageoftheAct?

20 MR.DANIEL: No,Justice. Wethinkthatthe

21 coveragewasalreadythereinthe1968Act. Whenyou

22 lookatallthetoolsofstatutoryconstruction,they

23 allpointinonedirection,andthatis,tothatbeing

24 aatleastapermissible,ifnotthebest,

25 interpretationin1968thatCongressintendedtocover


37


1 effectsofpastsegregationandotherdiscrimination,

2 whetheritwasintentionalornot. It'sthroughoutthat

3 record,itisdiscussingthemajorimplementofracial

4 segregationandhowitwasbroughtabout. Itintended

5 toendtheeffectsofthat. Itsaiditagainandagain.

6 Wethinkthe1988,itcertainlyrecognized

7 thedisparateimpactrule,ittalkedaboutthe

8 disparateimpactruleinthecourtsofappeals. Itknew

9 itwasthere. Itwasbeingdoneininthecontextof

10 thosecourtsofappeals.

11 Nofurtherquestions?

12 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,counsel.

13 GeneralVerrilli.

14 ORALARGUMENTOFDONALDB.VERRILLI,JR.

15 ONBEHALFOFUNITEDSTATES,

16 ASAMICUSCURIAE,SUPPORTINGRESPONDENT

17 GENERALVERRILLI: Mr.ChiefJustice,and

18 mayitpleasetheCourt:

19 Thestatutoryprovisionsthatmostclearly

20 showthatHUD'sdisparateimpactregulationsarea

21 permissibleinterpretationoftheFairHousingActare

22 thethreeexemptions. Thoseexemptionspresupposethe

23 existenceofdisparateimpactliabilityandsoserveno

24 realpurposewithoutthemwithoutdisparateimpact

25 liability.



38

1 Andtheprovenanceofthoseexemptionslends

2 particularlystrongsupportforthereasonablenessof

3 HUD'sreading. Theywereaddedbyamendmentin1988at

4 atimewhennine,Ithinkthenumberisninecourtsof

5 appeals,hadruledthattheFairHousingActauthorized

6 disparateimpact,andtheyandtheywereaddedto

7 providedefensestoexemptionsfromthey'relabeled

8 asexemptionsfrom,carveoutsfrom,disparateimpact

9 liability. Soyou'vegot

10 JUSTICESCALIA: Ithinkyourcasewouldbe

11 strongeriftherehadbeennocourtofappealsthat

12 hadthathadfavoreddisparateimpact. Thenthen

13 youcouldn'tpossiblyargue,well,thatwasputinjust

14 toeliminatetheerroneousjudgmentsofthesecourtsof

15 appealsinincertainareas,anyway. Itwouldbe

16 betterifnocourtofappealshadsaidthat

17 GENERALVERRILLI: Well

18 JUSTICESCALIA: andCongresshadenacted

19 these

20 GENERALVERRILLI: No,Iactuallythinkit's

21 betterthewayithappenedbecauseforourcase

22 becauseofthereenactmentcanon. YouhaveSection

23 805ofthislawwasreenactedagainstthebackdrop,so

24 youhavethereenactmentofthoseninecourtsof

25 appeals. Soyouhavethereenactmentcanonandyouhave



39

1 thecanonagainstthepresumptionagainstsuperfluous

2 amendmentsbothworking. Andremember,we'reinChevron

3 territoryhere. Sothequestioniswhetherthe

4 statutorytextunambiguouslyforeclosesHUD's

5 interpretation.

6 JUSTICEALITO: CanIaskyouaquestion

7 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Well,oneconcern

8 oneconcernaboutdisparateimpactisthatit'svery

9 difficulttodecidewhatimpactisisgoodandbad.

10 Taketwoproposals. Oneisaproposaltobuildnew

11 housinginalowincomearea,itwouldbenefit

12 primaryprimarilyminorities;newhousing,good

13 thing. Theotherproposalistobuildhousinginamore

14 affluentarea. Itwouldhelppromoteintegrationof

15 housing;alsoagoodthing.

16 Whichonegetscreditforundertryingto

17 decidetheimpact? Theonethatisrevitalizinga

18 lowincomeareaortheonethatisintegratinga

19 highincomearea?

20 GENERALVERRILLI: Right. Iunderstand

21 that,Mr.ChiefJustice,andtheremaybedifficult

22 questions. Ofcourse,theagencyherechargedby

23 Congressexpressly,inthe1988amendments,Iwouldadd,

24 withinterpretingandenforcingtheseprovisions,has

25 concludedthattheydothatdisparateimpactisthe


40


1 rightpolicyjudgment.

2 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: No,no. But

3 whichwhichcounts? Imean,whichbenefitsyou're

4 tryingtoseeifthere'sadisparateimpacton

5 minorities.

6 GENERALVERRILLI: Itmaywellbe

7 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Ifyougivethe

8 proposaltothelowincomehousingintheaffluent

9 neighborhood,thatcertainlybenefitsintegration. If

10 yougivetheproposaltofundtheproposalinthe

11 lowincomearea,thatcertainlyhelpshousing

12 opportunitiesthere.

13 GENERALVERRILLI: SoI'mgoingtoanswer

14 YourHonor'squestiondirectly.

15 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Good.

16 GENERALVERRILLI: ButIthinkyou'vegotto

17 doitinthecontextofthewayinwhicha

18 disparateimpactcasehasgottobeproven. It'snot

19 enoughjustthatthere'sastatisticaldisparity. A

20 plaintiffhasgottodemonstratethataparticular

21 practiceorcriterionbeingappliedisbeing

22 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Andwhatisthepractice

23 here? BecausethatwasthequestionJudgeJones

24 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,youknow,that'sa

25 verygoodquestion. IfImayjustanswerJustice


41


1 Ginsburg,andI'llcomebackandfinishmyanswerto

2 you,Mr.ChiefJustice.

3 Thatthethat'saverygoodpoint,

4 JusticeGinsburg. Andwearealthoughwearehere

5 defendingHUD'sinterpretation,andwethinktheanswer

6 tothequestionpresentedisyes. Thatthat'swe

7 don'thaveapositiononwhetherthisisaviable

8 disparateimpactclaim,andwethinkJudgeJoneshas

9 madeagoodpointinourinherconcurrencebecause

10 it'snotcleartouswhatspecificpracticethatthe

11 theStateagencyhasengagedinherethatwouldwould

12 justifythefindingofdisparateimpactliability. And

13 onethingthatwassuggestedismaybethatcouldbe

14 dealtwithonremandfromthedistrictcourt.

15 AndIdothinkthat'sandthatgetsto

16 whatIwastryingtosaytoyou,Mr.ChiefJustice,

17 whichisthatyou'vegottoapplythetestwhichis

18 HUDhassetoutasarealtest.

19 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Well,withrespect,

20 Idon'tthinkthat'sresponsive. Yousayyoulookat

21 whichprovisionishavingthedisparateimpact,butI

22 stilldon'tunderstandwhichisthedisparateimpact.

23 GENERALVERRILLI: Well

24 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Inotherwords,is

25 ittheprovisionthatcausesmoreproposalstogoto


42


1 lowincomehousingintheaffluentarea? Orisitthe

2 provisionthatcausesmoreapprovalofmoreproposals

3 inthelowincomearea? You'vegottoknowwhatyou're

4 shootingatbeforeyoucantellifyou'vemissed.

5 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,thedisparate

6 right. Thedisparitytiedtoaparticularpractice,

7 it'sjustthefirststepintheanalysis. Thesecond

8 stepintheanalysisisjustification,what'sthe

9 justification.

10 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: I'msorry,Iand

11 I'lljustaskitforthelasttimeandthenletyouget

12 on.

13 GENERALVERRILLI: Yeah.

14 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: You'resayingyou

15 needthejustification,butforwhat? Whichisthebad

16 thingtodo,notpromotebetterhousinginthe

17 lowincomeareaornotpromotehousingintegration?

18 GENERALVERRILLI: Youknow,itmaybe

19 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Yousayyoulookat

20 what'scausingthebadeffect,butwhat'sthebad

21 effect?

22 GENERALVERRILLI: Itmaybethatneitheris

23 becausethestatemaysaythethegovernmentmaysay

24 inthefirstcase,well,thisisourjustification,and

25 thatmaybeajustificationthatholdsup. The


43


1 governmentmaysayinthesecondcase,well,that'sour

2 justification,andthatmaybeajustificationthat

3 holdsup. SoIjustthinkthatyou'vegot

4 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Doyouthinkthata

5 privatedeveloperwouldeverbefoundguiltyof

6 disparateimpactbecauseheownsapieceofpropertyin

7 anaffluentneighborhood?

8 GENERALVERRILLI:

9 coursenot.

10 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:

11 develophisproperty,right?

12 GENERALVERRILLI:

13 thoughtthequestion


No,certainlynot,of

He'spermittedto

Yes,ofcourse. AndI

Thedisparateimpact

15 wouldbeifhefailstosellormakeavailabletopeople

16 ofallraces,let'ssay,theunitsinthatproperty,

17 correct?

18 GENERALVERRILLI:

19 specificpractice.


21 GENERALVERRILLI:

22 justthefirststate


24 practice

25 GENERALVERRILLI:

There'sgottobea

Practice.

That'sright. Andthat's

Allright. Thespecific

Andthat'sjustthefirst


44


1 statementintheanalysis

2 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: thathasa

3 business

4 GENERALVERRILLI: andit'sgottobe

5 unjustified.

6 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Exactly.

7 GENERALVERRILLI: Thatandthat's

8 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Ithoughtthe

9 questionwas,though,Imean,theit'snota

10 developer,it'stheDepartmentofHousingandCommunity

11 Affairs,andIthoughtthechallengewenttowherethey

12 werebeenwheretheyweresupporting

13 development

14 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,this

15 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: notthe

16 developer,butbut

17 GENERALVERRILLI: Thismaynotbeagood

18 disparateimpactclaim,Mr.ChiefJustice. Butthe

19 casesthatareintheHeartlandarereallypretty

20 straightforward.

21 JUSTICEKENNEDY: Butareyousayingthatin

22 eachcasethattheChiefJusticeputs,thereis

23 initiallyadisparateimpactatstepone,thatisto

24 say,CommunityAwantsthedevelopmenttobeinthe

25 suburbs. Andthenextstate,thecommunitywantsitto


45


1 beinthepoorneighborhood. Isityourposition,it

2 seemstome,andthepositionoftheRespondents,that

3 ineithercase,steponehasbeensatisfied.

4 GENERALVERRILLI: Thatmayberight,

5 JusticeKennedy,butIthinkthepoint

6 JUSTICEKENNEDY: Butthatthatseems

7 veryoddtome.

8 GENERALVERRILLI: ButIthinkthatevenif

9 they'redifficultcasesunderdisparateimpact,there

10 arecasesintheHeartlandthathavebeenadjudicated

11 for35or40years,casessuchasthereisazoning

12 restrictionthathasadisparateimpactthatitcannot

13 bejustifiedonasubstantialbasis. Therethereis

14 anoccupancyrestrictionforanapartment

15 JUSTICEALITO: CanIaskyouaquestion

16 I'msorry,aboutChevron. Shouldwebeconcernedhere

17 abouttheuseofChevrontomanipulatethedecisionsof

18 thisCourt? ThetheFairHousingActwasenactedin

19 1968. For40yearsplus,therewerenoHUDregulations.

20 ThenwegrantedcertintheGallaghercase,anditwas

21 onlyafterthatandwithin,Ithink,daysafterthat

22 thattheHUDregulationswereissued. Andthenthe

23 Gallaghercasesettled,andthenweissuedthenwe

24 grantedcertintheMt.Hollycase,andtheMt.Holly

25 casesettled. Soshouldwebetroubledbythis


46


1 chronology?

2 GENERALVERRILLI: SotheIunderstand

3 theimportofyourquestion,YourHonor. IguessI

4 wouldsayacoupleofthingsinresponse. Thefirstis

5 thatHUD,intheformaladjudicationsreviewedbythe

6 secretary,hasfounddisparateimpactliability

7 availableundertheseprovisionsintheFairHousingAct

8 since1992,Ibelieve. Andthosewouldbeentitledto

9 Chevrondeference,andIdothink,respectfully,that

10 that'sapointthatwemadeinourbriefininthe

11 firstcase,thetheGallaghercase.

12 Second,andIdon'tmeantobeflipaboutit

13 becauseIunderstandtheimportofYourHonor's

14 question,butIdothinkitoverestimatestheefficiency

15 ofthegovernmenttothinkthatyoucouldget,youknow,

16 asupposedrulemakingonanissuelikethisoutwithin

17 sevendays.

18 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Itwasa

19 coincidence.

20 JUSTICESCALIA: Thatwasverypersuasive.

21 GENERALVERRILLI: Ireallyandsoso

22 Idon'tIthink,actually,thishasbeenaposition

23 ofHUDforaverylongtime,andyouwouldgetChevron

24 deferencefortheadjudications. Ithinkthat's

25 prettyprettyclear,whollyapartfromthereg,but


47


1 wedohavetheregnowandIdothinkitgetsChevron

2 deference.

3 AndifIcouldturntothequestionof

4 avoidance,constitutionalavoidance,thathascomeup.

5 Idon'tthinkthisisasuitablecaseforconstitutional

6 avoidance,andletmetrytoexplainwhy. Whateverone

7 mightthinkintheTitleVIIcontextaboutthe

8 consequencesoffindingdisparateimpactliability,this

9 isaverydifferentcontext. InaTitleVIIcontext,

10 theissuehasbeenraisedisthattheonlywaytoavoid

11 disparateimpactliabilityistoengageinracebased

12 remedies,notracebasedthinkingaboutwhatneutral

13 criteriontoadopt,butracebasedremedies.

14 AndhereintheHeartlandcasesunderthe

15 FairHousingAct,youaren'tgoingtohavethatkindof

16 anissue. Theremedyisgoingtobethesubstitutionof

17 oneraceneutralruleforanotherraceneutralrule.

18 Forexample,ifaifalandlordcannotjustifyan

19 occupancyrestrictionthat'sparticularlytight,the

20 theremedythereisgoingtobeeithernooccupancy

21 restrictionoralooseroccupancyrestriction. Andthe

22 consequenceinthosecasessamethingwithzoningand

23 otherthingstheconsequenceinthosecasesisis

24 thatnoonegetsclassifiedbyrace,noonegetsa

25 burdenimposeduponthembecauseofrace,andnoone


48


1 getsabenefitbecauseofrace.

2 JUSTICESCALIA: Whatwhatruleyou

3 selectdependsonwhataffectthatwillhaveonracial

4 racialuseofthefacility.

5 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,Ithinkthe

6 consequencenoIthink,JusticeScalia,withall

7 dueall

8 JUSTICESCALIA: Youselectonthebasisof

9 whataffectitwillhaveonrace.

10 GENERALVERRILLI: Wellwell,butthat

11 kindofconsideration,solongasthetherulethat

12 comeslaterisaraceneutralrule,seemstomeis

13 exactlythekindofthingthatthepluralityopinionof

14 thisCourtinCrosonsaidinthecontractingcontext

15 thatgovernmentscoulddo. Theycouldn'tafforda

16 preferencetominoritycontractors,buttheycoulddo

17 suchthingstheCourtsuggestedaschangingthebonding

18 requirementsorchangingotherfinancialrequirementsin

19 ordertomaketheminoritycontractorswhichtendedto

20 benewer,smallerbusinessesmoreeligible. Those

21 those

22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Tounderscorethat,

23 becauseIthinkeverybodyisgettingconfusedwiththis,

24 disparateimpactdoesnotgotowhotheytakeunless

25 theysetupapractice



49

1 GENERALVERRILLI: That'sthat'scorrect.

2 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: thathasthataffect.

3 GENERALVERRILLI: AndsointheHeartland

4 cases,withrespecttotheFairHousingAct,thekinds

5 ofremediesthataregoingtobeimposedarelikethe

6 kindsofremediesthattheCourtsaidorthe

7 plurality,excuseme,setinCrosonwouldfind.

8 And,JusticeKennedy,they'relikethekinds

9 ofraceneutralconsiderationsthatYourHonor'sopinion

10 inParentsinvolvesthatwererefined.

11 JUSTICEBREYER: Whatyou'resayingis

12 supposethattheplaintiffsinthiscase,thatside,

13 winstotrythey'retryingtowin. Thedefense,

14 ontheotherit'snottruethatthatmeansall

15 Section8housingisnowgoingtobeorevenalarge

16 amountisgoingtobeputinrichneighborhoods.

17 First,theycandefendonthegroundthatwe

18 don'thavethatpractice,toputitinpoor

19 neighborhoods. Second,theycansay,yes,wedo,but

20 don'tyouseethatisn'tgoingtohurtminorities

21 becauseitputsthoseminoritiesinhousingwheremany

22 ofthemare,unfortunately,inpoorneighborhoods,and

23 itdoesn'thavethegreateffectondesegregationthat

24 theythink. Orthird,iftheyloseonthat,theycan

25 saybutanywayit'sjustifiedforawholebunchof


50


1 reasons.

2 GENERALVERRILLI: Yes,butso

3 JUSTICEBREYER: Sotheansweriscaseby

4 case,theyhaveaspecificsetofformsthatgive

5 answers

6 GENERALVERRILLI: That's

7 JUSTICEBREYER: andjudgesjudgeit

8 GENERALVERRILLI: Absolutely.

9 JUSTICEBREYER: andHUDcancomeinand

10 decide,andthereisnoneedtothrowthewholebaby

11 outorIdon'tknowwhetherit'sthebabyorthebath

12 water,whateveryou'rethrowingout. Butyoudon'thave

13 tothrowoutthewholebigthinginordertoprevent

14 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: SojustI'm

15 sorry. SoJustsoIcanunderstand,because,again,I

16 don'tknowwhatyou'reshootingfor. Twodifferent

17 communities,okay? Theyhavethesetaxcredits,

18 whatevertogiveout. Oneplace,theygiveittothe

19 housingintheaffluentneighborhood;theother,they

20 giveittothehouseinthelowincomeneighborhood.

21 They'rebothsuedfordisparateimpact. Intheone,

22 theysay,oh,no,no,thisisgoodbecausewe're

23 promotingintegrationsotheimpactonminoritiesisnot

24 aproblem. Andtheothersays,no,thisisgoodbecause

25 we'rerevitalizinglowincomeneighborhoodsandthat


51


1 helpstheminorities. Theybothwin?

2 MR.VERRILLI: Theymightbothwin,yes.

3 AndifIcould,Ijustwanttofinishuponthe

4 constitutionalavoidancepoint,ifIcouldconnecting

5 somethingJusticeBreyersaid.

6 Ifthereareparticularinstancesinwhich

7 thereisaconcernthattherecognitionofdisparate

8 impactliabilitycouldresultinnotjustracebased

9 thinkingaboutneutralmeansbutracebasedremedies,it

10 seemstometheanswerthereistheanswerthatthe

11 Courtusuallygives,whichisthinkaboutthemonan

12 asappliedbasis. Butthatisn'tajustificationfor

13 denyingHUDtheauthoritythatwesubmitthatHUDhas

14 underundertheregulationsunderthestatuteas

15 amendedin1988whenCongressspecificallygaveHUDthe

16 authoritytointerprettheseprovisionsanddidso

17 againstthebackdropofimposingtheexemptionswhich

18 presupposeddisparateimpactliabilityandreenacting

19 thestatuteinwhich,afterninecourtsofappealshad

20 foundthatitdidimposedisparateimpactliability.

21 ThequestionhereiswhetherunderChevronthestatutory

22 textreadfairlyin1988,takingallprovisionsofthe

23 statutetogether,unambiguouslyforeclosesHUDfrom

24 findingdisparateimpactliabilityhere. Andweassume

25 andweawesubmitthattheanswertothatquestion


52


1 mustbeno,itdoesnotunambiguouslyforforbidHUD

2 fromreachingtheconclusionthatitreachedand,

3 therefore,theanswertothequestionpresentedinthis

4 casewhichiswhethertheFairHousingActrecognizes

5 disparateimpactliabilityisyes.

6 JUSTICEKAGAN: AndGeneral,couldIjust

7 askIdon'tknowalotaboutthisareaandItakeit

8 thatoneofthethingsthatyouarewarningusagainst

9 isseeingtheentireareathroughtheprismofthisone

10 quiteunusualcase. Andyou'vereferredafewtimesto

11 sortoftheHeartlandcaseswithoutreallygettingout

12 whattheHeartlandcasesare. So,forme,whatare

13 they?

14 MR.VERRILLI: Surethey'rethekindmay

15 Ianswer,Mr.ChiefJustice?

16 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Sure.

17 MR.VERRILLI: Thankyou. They'rethekinds

18 ofcasesthathavebeenlitigatedandyou'llseeinthe

19 courtsofopinions,courtofappeals'opinionsfor35

20 yearsrestrictionssayatownadoptsarestriction

21 sayingyoucan'tconverthousingfromownershipto

22 rentalunlessyou'rerentingtoabloodrelativehasthe

23 effectofexcludingminorities. Townadoptsan

24 occupancyrestrictionforapartmentbuildingsthat'sso

25 tightthatyou'renotgoingtobeabletofamilies


53


1 withkidsaren'tgoingtobeabletolivethere. That

2 disproportionatelyeffectsminoritiesgroupswithkids.

3 Thosekindofthings,zoningrestrictions,housing

4 programrestrictions,thosekindsofrulesarethe

5 Heartlandcases. Thankyou.

6 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,General.

7 GeneralKeller,youhavefourminutesremaining.

8 ORALARGUMENTOFMR.SCOTTA.KELLER

9 ONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER

10 MR.KELLER: Mr.ChiefJustice,toanswer

11 yourquestion,bothwouldopenupliabilityfor

12 disparateimpact. HeretheDepartmentcouldhavefaced

13 disparateimpactliabilityifitwasgoingtotaketax

14 creditsandsendthemtolowerincomeneighborhoodsor

15 moreaffluentneighborhoods. Andeven

16 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,youkeepsaying

17 that,butthat'snotwhathappenedhere. Theremedywas

18 nottotellyoutomoveyourdevelopmentfromonearea

19 toanother. Theremedyhereisitdidpreclude

20 developmentnexttolandfills,butitalsoincluded

21 otherothertinkeringwiththequalifications. But

22 you'regoingtostillneedpeoplewhowanttodo

23 MR.KELLER: Butintheremedyinthiscase

24 thedistrictcourt

25 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: whattheywanttodo.


54


1 MR.KELLER: keptitandretained

2 jurisdictionforfiveyearssoevenifthedisparity's

3 notclosed

4 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Thathastogowithyour

5 attacksontheremedy. Thathasdoesn'thave

6 anythingtodowithwhatdisparateimpactasanapproach

7 setoutbyHUDdirectshouldbedone.

8 MR.KELLER: Andeachregulatedentityis

9 goingtohavetoexaminetheracialoutcomesoftheir

10 policiesineveryzoningdecisionmade

11 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: No.

12 MR.KELLER: ineveryraiseinrent

13 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Whattheydoiswhat

14 everyoneshoulddo. Isbeforetheysetupanypolicies,

15 thinkaboutwhatisthemostraceneutralpolicy.

16 That'saverydifferentthing. That,Ithink,everyone

17 isobligatedtodo.

18 MR.KELLER: Andthat'spreciselywhatthe

19 Department

20 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: It'sonlyiftheother

21 sideprovesthataqualificationhasanaraceeffect

22 that'snotnecessary,cantheywin.

23 MR.KELLER: AndheretheDepartmentengaged

24 inraceneutralpolicies.

25 JusticeAlito,toyourpointaboutSmithand


55


1 theADA'sreasonablefactorsotherthanageexemptions,

2 therearethreethingsthatdistinguishthatfromthis

3 case. First,there'sanimportanttexturaldifference.

4 TheADA'sreasonablefactorotherthanageprovision

5 referredtoactionsotherwiseprohibited. AndtheCourt

6 inSmithinterpretedthatasrecognizingthedisparate

7 impactliabilitycouldlieundertheADA. IntheFair

8 HousingAct,wedon'thavethatlanguage. The

9 exemptionssaynothingintheFHAprohibitsorlimits.

10 Sothisistrulyasafeharbor.

11 Second,SmithalreadynotedthattheADA

12 usedadverselyeffect. Andthird,Smithdidn'tinvolve

13 raceandsonoconstitutionalavoidancecanandwould

14 haveappliedthere.

15 Andonconstitutionalavoidance,thereason

16 we'reheretodayisbecausetheTexasdepartmentdidnot

17 useracebaseddecisionmaking. Takeahypothetical

18 fromGruder. IftheUniversityofMichiganhadsaid,

19 theincomingclassmusthave30percentofitsincoming

20 classofacertainraceandwepreferthat

21 raceconsciousorraceneutralmeanswereusedtodo

22 that,butifthosearen'tavailable,racebasedmeans

23 mustbeused,thatwouldbesuspect. Attheveryleast

24 allweneedtoshowisaconstitutionaldoubtforthe

25 constitutionalavoidancecanontoapplyhereandthe


56


1 remedysaidthattherewasone.

2 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Whatintheremedy

3 orderedherewasracebased? Whatremedysaidyouhave

4 totakein10,20,15percent?

5 MR.KELLER: Theparticularremedyhere

6 wasn'tracebased,buttheliabilitytobeginwithand

7 whetherthedisparityisgoingtocloseandwhetherthe

8 Departmentisgoingtoremainnotincompliancewiththe

9 FairHousingAct,isstillracebased.

10 Thankyou,Mr.ChiefJustice.

11 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,Counsel.

12 Thecaseissubmitted.

13 (Whereupon,at11:21a.m.,thecaseinthe

14 aboveentitledmatterwassubmitted.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


OfficialSubjecttoFinalReviewOfficialSubjecttoFinalReview

57

A

a.m 1:16 3:2

56:13

able 52:25 53:1

aboveentitled

1:14 56:14

absolutely 12:23

14:14 20:23

22:25 23:17

50:8

accommodati...

17:14

account 6:11

12:24 30:8

acknowledged

9:21

acknowledgm...

16:16

act 3:12,19 4:13

4:14,14,18,19

4:20 5:5,18

6:12,15 7:1,5

7:23 8:22 9:7

11:17 14:2,4

14:21 15:8,15

15:19,21,22

16:22 17:13

19:2 21:21

25:18 28:12,13

30:23 32:10

36:2,3,11,19

36:21 37:21

38:5 45:18

46:7 47:15

49:4 52:4 55:8

56:9

acted 7:6

action 7:7 11:7

24:8

actions 3:15 5:6

9:5 11:11 55:5

active 4:25 5:9

6:5 9:6

actively 15:4

activity 30:8

acts 5:1,3 9:8

11:17

ADA 55:7,11

ADA's 55:1,4

Adam 7:4,5

add 39:23

added 7:14 38:3

38:6

Adderand 20:15

addiction 12:19

additional 5:2

19:16 34:20

address 22:25

ADEA 3:23 4:21

4:22 6:24 7:25

28:12

adjudicated

45:10

adjudications

46:5,24

admits 34:16

adopt 47:13

adopted 14:19

15:9 27:12

adopts 52:20,23

adverse 29:15

adversely 3:20

4:3,6 5:8,10,20

5:25 6:25 7:10

7:12 8:12,18

9:2,10,15

11:19,25 12:1

12:5,13 55:12

Affairs 1:5 3:5

44:11

affect 3:20 4:3,6

5:8,10,20,25

6:25 7:12 8:12

8:18 9:10,15

11:20,25 12:1

12:13 22:15

48:3,9 49:2

affirmative 24:7

affluent 39:14

40:8 42:1 43:7

50:19 53:15

afford 48:15

age 35:7 55:1,4

agency 4:9

39:22 41:11

ago 18:17

agree 7:9 20:2

agreed 13:25

Aid 28:13

AL 1:5

Alito 15:6,18

34:19 35:12

36:1,10,17

39:6 45:15

54:25

alleged 29:8

alternative 31:3

31:19

alternatives

22:10

ambiguous

18:17,19,21

28:15

amended 51:15

amendment

13:6,13 15:2

16:18 17:3

38:3

amendments

10:4,12 11:18

13:11 14:23,25

15:3,7,10

16:22 17:1

19:1 39:2,23

amicus 1:24

2:10 37:16

amount 49:16

analysis 14:9

15:9,12 42:7,8

44:1

answer 17:23

21:7,14,14,17

29:2 33:15

34:7 40:13,25

41:1,5 50:3

51:10,10,25

52:3,15 53:10

answering 19:4

answers 21:17

50:5

anyway 9:17

38:15 49:25

apart 46:25

apartment

45:14 52:24

appeals 13:14

13:20 18:22

21:6,9 34:15

37:8,10 38:5

38:11,15,16,25

51:19 52:19

APPEARAN...

1:17

appeared 8:10

12:14

appears 6:5

10:16

application

21:25 22:3

24:23 32:19

applications

32:16

applied 19:15,18

40:21 55:14

apply 3:25 13:22

16:18 41:17

55:25

applying 14:20

approach 54:6

approval 42:2

arbitrary 22:7

area 22:11,12

26:3,4 32:23

34:2 39:11,14

39:18,19 40:11

42:1,3,17 52:7

52:9 53:18

areas 13:15

16:18 22:2

25:17 26:8

38:15

argue 9:13 36:2

38:13

arguing 26:22

27:10

argument 1:15

2:2,5,8,12 3:3

3:8 7:13 9:18

9:18 10:14

15:7,17 17:21

17:22 18:16

25:11 26:18,23

27:14,15,16

28:10,19,19,20

34:24 35:13,14

37:14 53:8

arguments

17:25 19:22

arisen 21:15

artificial 16:4

22:7

asapplied 51:12

aside 34:2

asked 21:10

assume 51:24

assumed 11:22

Assuming 29:9

attacks 54:5

Austin 1:19

authority 29:6,7

29:17,20 51:13

51:16

authorized 38:5

available 26:2,4

26:8 43:15

46:7 55:22

avoid 30:7 47:10

avoidance 3:18

21:20 47:4,4,6

51:4 55:13,15

55:25

awarded 32:16

33:6

B

B 1:22 2:9 37:14

baby 50:10,11

back 16:2 18:15

21:25 24:8

30:1 31:10,12

33:13 41:1

backdrop 38:23

51:17

bad 39:9 42:15

AldersonReportingCompanyAldersonReportingCompany

58


42:20,20 bring 33:24 causes 41:25 circuits 11:5 community 1:4

ban 5:17 broader 11:3 42:2 14:8 3:5 32:17,20

based 4:5 17:14 brought 37:4 causing 29:21 circumstance 33:8 44:10,24

21:15 23:11 build 39:10,13 30:14 42:20 33:20 44:25

24:12 buildings 52:24 cert 45:20,24 circumstances compels 3:18

basic 28:20 builds 34:2 certain 5:19 11:11 14:1 21:20

basically 20:5 bunch 49:25 9:23 13:12 cited 10:19 complete 17:17

35:5 burden 47:25 15:12 27:5 34:20,22,24 29:2

basis 5:11,24,25 business 24:21 28:6 38:15 City 3:20 17:16 completely 7:24

18:15,16 22:7 31:20 44:3 55:20 Civil 15:21 23:10

26:12 45:13 businesses 48:20 certainly 27:6 claim 29:6 41:8 compliance 56:8

48:8 51:12 37:6 40:9,11 44:18 concede 9:11 Cbath 50:11 43:8 claims 3:13 concern 39:7,8

C 2:1 3:1 began 21:14,14 cetera 4:8 17:20 28:14 51:7 called 26:9behalf 1:19,20 challenge 44:11 clarify 10:25 concerned 26:7 canon 3:171:24 2:4,7,10 chance 17:23 class 23:20 45:16 38:22,25 39:1 2:14 3:9 25:12 change 19:11,14 55:19,20 concerns 20:12 55:2537:15 53:9 changed 14:16 classifications concerted 32:17

care 31:20 32:2 believe 5:16 14:18 23:12 32:20 33:8 carefully 22:513:5,19 18:18 changing 48:17 classified 47:24 concerting carrying 30:846:8 48:18 classifying 5:18 32:20 carveouts 38:8benefit 39:11 charged 4:9 8:23 concluded 39:25 case 3:4 10:2,16 48:1 39:22 clause 22:21 conclusion 10:19 15:3benefits 40:3,9 check 5:19 clear 11:5,9 24:23 52:2 17:16 19:15,24 best 18:17 36:24 checking 8:11 15:11 21:20 concurrence 6:3 22:3 23:15better 23:7 8:25 26:6 41:10 25:6 41:9 25:15,17,20 38:16,21 42:16 Chevron 39:2 46:25 confused 48:23 27:17 28:16,23 big 21:1 50:13 45:16,17 46:9 clearly 11:12 Congress 6:12 30:15,16,18 bit 8:19 19:8 46:23 47:1 37:19 6:20,25 9:6,21 34:2 38:10,21 black 27:3 51:21 close 56:7 10:25 11:8,21 40:18 42:24blighted 22:2,11 Chief 3:3,10 closed 54:3 11:22 12:14,24 43:1 44:22blood 52:22 25:7,9,13 clue 6:20 13:3,7,19,24 45:3,20,23,24 Bob 7:5 28:24 29:1,4,5 code 32:21 14:5,14,19 45:25 46:11,11 body 12:17 29:13 30:4,6 coincidence 15:2,5,15 16:7 47:5 49:12bonding 48:17 37:12,17 39:7 46:19 16:13,20 17:18 50:3,4 52:4,10 bonus 33:11 39:21 40:2,7 colleges 22:24 26:7 35:19,19 53:23 55:3books 16:4 40:15 41:2,16 24:4 36:6,8,11,25 56:12,13 Breyer 17:21 41:19,24 42:10 combine 35:23 38:18 39:23

cases 17:12 23:5 18:20 19:3,7 42:14,19 44:8 come 15:24 18:4 51:15 44:19 45:9,10 19:17 20:9,24 44:15,18,22 18:12 19:11 congressional 45:11 47:14,22 21:10 24:22 46:18 50:14 30:1 31:19 26:6 35:18 47:23 49:433:13 34:7,10 52:15,16 53:6 41:1 47:4 50:9 congressman's 52:11,12,18 49:11 50:3,7,9 53:10 56:10,11 comes 48:12 14:10 53:551:5 choice 33:12 common 7:3 connecting 51:4

category 6:1brief 10:18,20 chose 9:6 communities 1:8 conscious 31:6 cause 33:2211:16 14:12,21 chronology 46:1 3:6 32:13 consensus 21:9 caused 27:2546:10 circuit 18:22 50:17 consequence


59


4:15,17 26:24 course 5:7 17:5 cure 29:8,10 51:13 30:3,25 31:2,8

30:7 47:22,23 34:13 39:22 30:22,22 department 1:3 discussing 37:3

48:6 43:9,12 curiae 1:24 2:10 1:23 3:4 44:10 disparate 3:24

consequences court 1:1,15 37:16 53:12 54:19,23 3:25 4:1,2,11

9:5 29:15 47:8 3:11 6:7,14,22 55:16 56:8 4:21 11:6 13:3 Dconsideration 8:8 10:14,24 depends 48:3 14:8,20 15:23

D 3:148:11 11:16,18 12:25 deprivation 8:25 16:3,17,24 D.C 1:11,23 considerations 13:8,13,19,20 deprive 5:20,20 17:2,3,7,12,19 Dallas 1:2049:9 14:25 15:3,25 8:11,12 9:1 18:1 22:4 Daniel 1:20 2:6 considering 15:1 16:6 17:17 describe 6:15 24:24 27:17,19 25:10,11,13,21 15:4 18:12 19:11,23 desegregation 27:22 28:7 25:25 26:23consistent 14:18 19:24 20:21 49:23 29:7,14 30:20 27:6,13 28:2 25:16 27:21 21:3 22:18 determined 4:10 34:22 35:6,8,9 28:17,20 29:4 33:25 24:18 25:14 develop 43:11 36:1,4 38:6,12 29:9,19 30:5 consists 16:12 28:10 30:21 developer 43:5 39:8,25 40:4 30:13,24 31:11 constitutional 33:9 34:6,9,20 44:10,16 41:21,22 42:5 31:21,24 32:4 3:18 21:15,20 37:18 38:11,16 developing 43:6,14 44:23 32:14 33:347:4,5 51:4 41:14 45:18 22:11 45:9,12 48:24 34:6,9,12 35:3 55:13,15,24,25 48:14,17 49:6 development 50:21 51:7,18 35:15 36:5,14 construction 51:11 52:19 22:2,16 44:13 51:20,24 52:5 36:2035:18,23 36:22 53:24 55:5 44:24 53:18,20 53:12,13 54:6

days 45:21construe 16:6,11 Court's 11:23 difference 21:2 55:6 46:17contemplated 34:12 24:10 55:3 disparateimp...

dealt 41:1415:8 courts 18:22 different 7:20 3:13 4:5 5:22 decaying 32:12context 25:2 21:4,6,9 34:14 8:16 27:10 8:9,13 11:10 decide 20:2128:11,12,12,13 34:15 37:8,10 47:9 50:16 11:21 14:9 39:9,17 50:10 37:9 40:17 38:4,14,24 54:16 15:9,12 19:14

decided 11:1847:7,9,9 48:14 51:19 52:19 difficult 39:9,21 19:24 21:22 21:3,4 continue 32:5 Cove 25:5 45:9 22:19 25:3

decision 10:22contracting cover 5:2 36:9 direct 54:7 28:4,7,14 30:7 15:24 54:1048:14 36:25 direction 36:23 34:4 35:16

decisionmaki... contractors coverage 36:19 directly 40:14 37:7,8,20,23 22:20,23 24:11 48:16,19 36:21 disability 17:15 37:24 38:8 55:17contribute 32:16 crazy 12:5 disagree 23:10 40:18 41:8,12

decisions 5:3contributing credit 32:11 disaster 18:15 44:18 46:6 13:14 45:1732:20 39:16 19:9 47:8,11

defend 49:17convert 52:21 credits 50:17 discriminate 6:7 disparately defending 41:5convince 19:22 53:14 discriminating 12:18,18 defense 49:13correct 31:20 crime 22:12 5:10 disparities 23:11 defenses 38:743:17 49:1 criteria 22:13 discrimination 24:13 deference 35:24counsel 25:9 24:19 31:6 3:17 6:9,14,19 disparity 27:2,9 46:9,24 47:2 37:12 56:11 33:11 11:17 26:24 27:11 33:22

degree 21:23count 12:20,21 criterion 40:21 27:2,4,4,9,18 40:19 42:6 demonstrate26:3,4 35:11 47:13 27:21 28:1 56:7 40:20counts 36:15 critical 35:12,13 37:1 disparity's 54:2

denials 5:440:3 Croson 48:14 discriminatory disproportion... denying 4:25couple 46:4 49:7 27:24,25 29:21 53:2



60

district 33:9 28:13 52:23 fair 3:12 4:14,19 form 12:10 18:5

41:14 53:24 emphasized excuse 35:7,11 5:5 6:11,15 7:1 formal 46:5

doing 8:2 12:24 11:19 49:7 9:7 11:16 14:2 forms 50:4

13:17 22:7 empirical 20:1 exemption 11:1 14:4,21 15:8 forward 17:20

26:25 29:25 employer 7:21 17:13,15 15:22 17:13 found 11:2,4,8

31:4 36:14 7:22 8:4 exemptions 18:2 19:2 24:18 33:9

DONALD 1:22 employment 12:21 13:21 21:21 25:18 34:15 43:5

2:9 37:14 6:18 14:19 17:17,18 30:22 32:9 46:6 51:20

doubt 24:5 enact 13:7,21 35:3,8,13,15 37:21 38:5 four 53:7

55:24 14:15 36:3 37:22,22 45:18 46:7 fourth 21:13

dropping 9:3 enacted 15:14 38:1,7,8 51:17 47:15 49:4 fully 21:17

drug 12:19 15:16 16:7,20 55:1,9 52:4 55:7 56:9 functional 25:3

due 35:24 48:7 36:2 38:18 exist 9:15 17:9 fairly 51:22 fund 40:10

dwelling 4:19 45:18 17:10 families 52:25 further 37:11

7:2,4 enacting 10:12 existence 37:23 far 18:3

enforce 20:13 expand 9:14 fashion 21:4 G

E enforcement 15:13 36:19 favor 19:4 G 3:1

E 2:1 3:1,1 35:21 expanded 36:3 favored 38:12 Gallagher 19:16

earlier 22:1 enforcing 39:24 expansion 14:4 Federal 20:16 45:20,23 46:11

economically engage 47:11 expansive 35:20 FHA 11:7 17:18 GEN 1:22 2:9

8:19 engaged 41:11 explain 22:10 55:9 general 1:18,22

Edmonds 17:16 54:23 47:6 filed 11:16 14:13 7:9 10:15

effect 8:17 14:15 ensure 22:5 explained 20:13 financial 48:18 11:15 14:13,17

19:21 20:1,4,6 entire 10:3 52:9 explicitly 17:3 find 7:16 16:23 15:6 26:21

27:21,24,25 entitled 46:8 expresses 33:1 49:7 34:23 37:13,17

33:21 42:20,21 entity 54:8 expressly 39:23 finding 4:4 6:7 38:17,20 39:20

49:23 52:23 equal 19:12 extend 9:17 41:12 47:8 40:6,13,16,24

54:21 55:12 20:11 22:20 extending 21:22 51:24 41:23 42:5,13

effects 3:14 8:22 equate 27:9 extent 31:3 finely 18:16 42:18,22 43:8

9:22,23 10:8 equivalent 25:4 extra 7:13 finish 41:1 51:3 43:12,18,21,25

10:10 13:12 erroneous 13:13 extremely 14:3 first 3:4,13 44:4,7,14,17

16:8 27:19,20 38:14 20:12 31:14 45:4,8 46:2,21

34:22 36:9 especially 11:9 F 42:7,24 43:22 48:5,10 49:1,3

37:1,5 53:2 ESQ 1:18,20 2:3 face 24:1 43:25 46:4,11 50:2,6,8 52:6

effectsbased 2:6,9,13 faced 53:12 49:17 55:3 53:6,7

3:16,21 8:20 established facility 48:4 five 54:2 generations 6:13

9:2 19:10 fact 9:21 12:25 flip 46:12 getting 24:3

effectschecking et 1:5 4:8 13:7 26:24 flux 11:15 48:23 52:11

5:21 everybody 48:23 27:2 29:10 focus 6:22 8:21 ghettos 6:16

efficiency 46:14 exact 8:3 30:17 31:2,11 focuses 5:5 8:17 26:9

either 8:4 15:8 exactly 14:7 35:4 9:7 Ginsburg 5:11

34:18 45:3 44:6 48:13 factor 35:7 55:4 follows 15:7 5:23 6:10,21

47:20 examine 54:9 factors 35:6 forbid 52:1 15:20 23:21,24

elephants 14:5 example 25:22 55:1 forecloses 39:4 30:17 32:8,25

eligible 48:20 32:4 47:18 factually 24:6 51:23 33:3 40:22

eliminate 38:14 exceptions 10:12 fails 43:15 foreseeable 41:1,4

Emergency excluding 27:5 failure 17:14 26:24 give 6:19 8:9



61

19:16 21:14,14 ground 49:17 housing 1:4 3:5 29:7,14,15 integrated 6:17

33:7 35:20 groups 53:2 3:12 4:14,16 30:20 34:22 integrating 6:16

40:7,10 50:4 Gruder 55:18 4:20 5:5 6:12 35:6,8,9 36:2,4 39:18

50:18,18,20 guess 46:3 6:15 7:1 9:7 38:6,12 39:8,9 integration 23:8

gives 51:11 guilty 43:5 11:16 12:1,12 39:17,25 40:4 39:14 40:9

giving 35:24 14:2,4,21 15:8 41:21,22 43:6 42:17 50:23

glaring 24:1 H 15:22 17:13 43:14 44:23 intend 15:15

go 17:20 19:19 hangs 9:20 19:2 21:21 45:9,12 48:24 36:8

19:23 21:25 happen 23:7 25:2,18 29:5,7 50:21,23 51:8 intended 36:25

23:20 27:22 happened 14:17 29:17,19 30:23 51:18,20,24 37:4

29:9 31:10,12 18:11 38:21 30:25 32:10 52:5 53:12,13 intent 22:5 28:6

33:13 41:25 53:17 37:21 38:5 54:6 55:7 28:23

48:24 54:4 happening 39:11,12,13,15 impacting 12:19 intentional 3:17

goal 6:12 19:20,20 40:8,11 42:1 implement 37:3 6:8 11:17

goals 31:5 happens 4:15 42:16,17 44:10 import 46:3,13 14:21 27:18,25

going 9:17 11:12 22:25 45:18 46:7 important 17:24 37:2

15:20 17:15 harbor 55:10 47:15 49:4,15 18:9,13 55:3 intentionally

18:15 20:13,16 hard 16:23 29:3 49:21 50:19 importantly 27:4

22:1,15 27:16 hazardous 32:6 52:4,21 53:3 3:19 interest 25:2,16

27:18 32:16,22 hear 3:3 20:9 55:8 56:9 impose 51:20 27:23 29:20,23

33:6 35:7 33:15 HUD 19:19 imposed 23:5 29:24

40:13 47:15,16 Heartland 44:19 20:13 35:24 24:17,17 47:25 interfere 20:16

47:20 49:5,15 45:10 47:14 41:18 45:19,22 49:5 interpret 51:16

49:16,20 52:25 49:3 52:11,12 46:5,23 50:9 imposes 24:24 interpretation

53:1,13,22 53:5 51:13,13,15,23 imposing 51:17 3:18 6:3 15:25

54:9 56:7,8 held 12:17 28:11 52:1 54:7 improperly 21:21 35:21

good 17:24 24:8 help 20:17 39:14 HUD's 37:20 12:18 36:25 37:21

24:16 32:23 helpful 18:14 38:3 39:4 41:5 include 28:14 39:5 41:5

39:9,12,15 20:5 hung 9:14 33:19 34:4 interpreted 4:4

40:15,25 41:3 helps 40:11 51:1 Huntington included 6:24 18:23 28:21

41:9 44:17 hide 14:5 15:1 36:4 53:20 55:6

50:22,24 high 23:19 hurdles 22:8 includes 16:22 interpreting

goodness 18:21 highincome hurt 49:20 27:6 4:10 39:24

government 39:19 hypothetical including 10:4 interrupted

20:12 42:23 higher 32:23 55:17 Inclusive 1:8 3:5 31:13

43:1 46:15 holdings 21:5 income 20:17 invitation 13:4

governmental holds 42:25 43:3 I 25:16 26:8 involve 55:12

30:8 holes 14:6 identical 10:14 32:23 39:11 involves 49:10

governments Holley 9:6 identify 22:9 incoming 55:19 IRS 32:21

48:15 Holly 45:24,24 impact 3:24,25 55:19 issue 11:3 15:1,3

grand 6:12 Honor 46:3 4:2,11,21 11:6 indicated 36:6 15:14 21:3

granted 45:20 Honor's 40:14 13:3 14:8,20 industrial 32:6 25:24,25 34:14

45:24 46:13 49:9 15:23 16:3,17 inhibit 22:1 46:16 47:10,16

great 49:23 honored 32:18 16:25 17:2,4,7 initially 15:14 issued 45:22,23

Griggs 3:23 4:4 hook 4:5 17:19 18:1 36:2 44:23

15:24 16:3 horribles 18:10 22:4 23:7 instances 51:6 J

34:13 house 50:20 24:24 27:20,22 integrate 23:1 Jackson 3:20



62

January 1:12 38:18 39:6,7 14:24 15:18 largely 27:3 limiting 5:18

Jones 40:23 41:8 39:21 40:2,7 16:6,10 17:1 lasted 21:6 8:23 17:19

JR 1:22 2:9 40:15,22,25 17:11 18:18 Laughter 18:25 limits 55:9

37:14 41:2,4,16,19 19:1,6,12 20:8 lines 34:10

judge 40:23 41:8 41:24 42:10,14 20:11,23 21:8 law 10:3,4,5,10 linguistically

50:7 42:19 43:4,10 21:19 22:17 11:2,4,7,9,9,15 34:3

judges 50:7 43:14,20,23 23:2,9,17 12:17 16:12,12 litigated 52:18

judgment 40:1 44:2,6,8,15,18 24:10,25 53:7 16:14,21,22 litigation 30:19

judgments 44:21,22 45:5 53:8,10,23 17:25 18:8,13 little 8:19 12:4

38:14 45:6,15 46:18 54:1,8,12,18 19:8 20:4 16:4,19 19:8

jurisdiction 54:2 46:20 48:2,6,8 54:23 56:5 32:10,11,14 live 53:1

Justice 1:23 3:3 48:22 49:2,8 Keller's 34:24 33:1 34:2 living 6:17

3:10,22 4:7,12 49:11 50:3,7,9 Kennedy 44:21 38:23 long 46:23 48:11

4:15 5:7,11,12 50:14 51:5 45:5,6 49:8 lay 11:12 longer 34:1

5:16,23 6:10 52:6,15,16 kept 54:1 lead 25:3 look 10:2,3 16:2

6:21 7:8,9,17 53:6,10,16,25 kids 53:1,2 leads 19:15 16:14,19,21

7:18 8:5,15 9:9 54:4,11,13,20 kill 10:2 leave 11:2 19:20 26:2

9:25 10:1,11 54:25 56:2,10 kind 28:6 33:11 leaving 11:7 30:11,13,14

10:18,21,23 56:11 47:15 48:11,13 legacy 6:18 33:17 36:7,22

11:4,14,24 justification 52:14 53:3 legal 25:24,25 41:20 42:19

12:4,10,16 19:25,25 42:8 kinds 49:4,6,8 legally 34:4 looked 13:8

13:1,5,10,16 42:9,15,24,25 52:17 53:4 legislating 13:25 looking 34:5

13:18 14:7,16 43:2,2 51:12 knew 15:23 37:8 legislation 9:22 looser 47:21

15:6,18,20 justified 33:23 know 5:12 7:16 legislature 24:1 lose 20:2 49:24

16:9,11 17:5,6 45:13 49:25 9:23 22:15 24:8 lot 35:17 52:7

17:21 18:20 justifies 27:23 26:19 40:24 legitimate 24:21 low 25:16 26:8

19:3,7,17 20:9 29:24 42:3,18 46:15 31:20 32:23 39:11

20:18,20,21,23 justify 41:12 50:11,16 52:7 lends 38:1 lowincome

20:24 21:1,10 47:18 known 11:22 let's 21:25 27:8 39:18 40:8,11

21:24 22:17,22 knows 11:8 27:8 43:16 42:1,3,17

23:3,9,14,15 K 14:14 liability 4:5 5:22 50:20,25

23:17,18,21,23 Kagan 7:8,17,18 8:9,14 10:12 lower 20:17 21:3

23:24 24:14,15 8:5,15 11:4,14 L 10:13 11:21 24:17

24:

oral arguments fair housing case

Documents