HILLS V. GAUTREAUX
425 U.S. 284 (1976)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the geographical scope of a remedial order
and whether the remedial order of the federal trial court may extend beyond Chicago's
territorial boundaries where the specific Constitutional violations had occurred.
FACTS: Six Negro tenants (Ps) in or applicants for public housing in Chicago, brought
separate actions on behalf of themselves and all other Negro tenants and applicants
similarly situated against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and HUD. The complaint filed
alleged that CHA deliberately selected sites to 'avoid the placement of Negro families in
white neighborhoods' in violation of federal statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment. In a
companion suit against HUD Ps claimed that it had 'assisted in the carrying on and continues
to assist in the carrying on of a racially discriminatory public housing system within the
City of Chicago' by providing financial assistance and other support for CHA's
discriminatory housing projects. The District Court stayed the action against HUD pending
resolution of the CHA suit. Summary judgment was entered against CHA on the ground that it
had violated the respondents' constitutional rights by selecting public housing sites and
assigning tenants on the basis of race. In order to prohibit future violations and to remedy
the effects of past unconstitutional practices, the court directed CHA to build its next 700
family units in predominantly white areas of Chicago and thereafter to locate at least 75%
of its new family public housing in predominantly white areas inside Chicago or in Cook
County. The District Court then turned to the action against HUD. In September 1970, it
granted HUD's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state
a claim on which relief could be granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment for the
respondents, holding that HUD had violated both the Fifth Amendment and 601 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, by knowingly sanctioning and assisting
CHA's racially discriminatory public housing program. On remand, the trial court addressed
the difficult problem of providing an effective remedy for the racially segregated public
housing system that had been created by the unconstitutional conduct of CHA and HUD. The
court denied the Ps' motion to consider metropolitan area relief and adopted the
petitioner's proposed order requiring HUD to use its best efforts to assist CHA in
increasing the supply of dwelling units and enjoining HUD from funding family public housing
programs in Chicago that were inconsistent with the previous judgment entered against CHA;
'the wrongs were committed within the limits of Chicago and solely against residents of the
City' and there were no allegations that 'CHA and HUD discriminated or fostered racial
discrimination in the suburbs.' The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with one judge
dissenting, reversed and remanded the case for 'the adoption of a comprehensive metropolitan
area plan that will not only disestablish the segregated public housing system in the City
of Chicago . . . but will increase the supply of dwelling units as rapidly as possible.' 503
F.2d 930, 939. The appellate court's determination that a remedy extending beyond the city
limits was both 'necessary and equitable' rested in part on the agreement of the parties and
the expert witnesses that 'the metropolitan area is a single relevant locality for low rent
housing purposes and that a city-only remedy will not work.' HUD subsequently sought review
in this Court of the permissibility in light of Milliken of 'inter-district relief for
discrimination in public housing in the absence of a finding of an inter-district violation.'
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment