The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Someone explain the FHA SCOTUS case
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:20 PM Author: at-the-ready bonkers roommate parlor Let me know if this is right.
Texas did not issue tax credits to developers who wanted to build section 8 slums in nice neighborhoods. The impact of keeping poor people out of rich neighborhoods led to racial segregation.
Okay to sue Texas to apply disparate impact standard, whereby Texas would have to prove a non-discriminatory reason.
Could Texas use "we dont want fucking poors in a nice neighborhood" as a non discriminatory reason? |
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:21 PM Author: Concupiscible Cruise Ship lol seems reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose
also in actual con. law "poor" is not a protected class. so it is just rational base review, under the DI theory though if they prove the impact of this is racial it raises the standard of review to intermediate/strict scrutiny |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:30 PM Author: at-the-ready bonkers roommate parlor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28198962) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:40 PM Author: navy newt set Yes, that would be legal if it didn't have a disparate impact. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28199025) |
 |
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:45 PM Author: hideous headpube So reason has nothing to do with it, you only look at the effects of the state's decision? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28199055) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:48 PM Author: navy newt set Yeah. It's the same logic throwing out police tests and things like that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28199072) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:49 PM Author: french razzmatazz sex offender indirect expression that's the distinction between disparate impact and disparate treatment, yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28199081) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:50 PM Author: at-the-ready bonkers roommate parlor I don't think that's how disparate impact works - the burden is shifted such that the state has to show a non-discriminatory purpose. The impact does not vitiate a neutral purpose - my question is how strong of an interest does that purpose have to be? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28199086) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:57 PM Author: navy newt set Very. You would have to show "necessity" so that it is necessary that the poors belong in one area and the rich belong in another area and then you have to prove that it works in achieving the purpose. You wouldn't succeed.
The EEOC actually sued a company for using standard criminal background checks because minorities are more likely to have criminal histories. The business won that one because they were like, "we don't want to hire criminals." But the EEOC is insane. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 3:50 PM Author: 180 locus factory reset button didn't read the op but surely more is needed than just disparate impact (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28199087) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2015 10:12 PM Author: Stirring preventive strike All reptiles must have gay marraige buttsex with negros in hospitals
HTH |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 9:37 AM Author: navy newt set (Scalia, penning his first draft) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2918978&forum_id=2#28203211) |