Sample Law Paper on Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project


The Inclusive Communities Project is a non-profit organization based in Texas. This organization filed a suit in 2008 claiming that the Texas agency representing the tax credit duties of the federal government, disproportionately allocated more tax credits in inner-city areas residing predominantly black people as compared to tax credit allocated in suburban neighbourhoods residing mostly whites. In support of this claim, the organization presented varying statistics of this allocation which showed that the units located in the census tracts in Dallas city amounted to 92.29% which resided few Caucasians who were less than 50%. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit validated the claim of the plaintiff upon identifying identifying existence of disparate impact claims as stated in the FHA. Considering disparate impact liability has mostly been limited to key respects so as to escape questions that may arise under FHA.The case is in the Supreme Court to question the U.S Department of Housing, and Urban Development interprets whether FHA has the right to take action in cases of disparate impacts. The purpose is to identity if disparate impact liability can rise under FHA.


The housing discrimination law allows individuals to file complaints under FHA, if they have experienced acts of unfair housing. There are two antidiscrimination statutes under FHA which recognise and approve claims under disparate impact. One of them is identifies discrimination under employment act (ADEA), while the other is of title VII which have clauses of civil rights under the act of 1994. One of the Statements in the FHA state that “it is unlawful to refuse to sell or rent…. or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to a person because of race” or any other characteristic protected by law. According to the Congress, the courts of appeal made a conclusion that the disparate claims were recognizable under FHA because after their review if they had assumed the non-existence of disparate impact liability in FHA, it would make the three exemptions from liability found in 1988 amendments redundant. The Congress also respected the consistency of disparate impact claims with the main purpose of FHA, which was enforced to eradicate discrimination practices just like Title VII and the ADEA.


There are various opinions of Justices assisting the case. According to majority opinion, Justice Antony Kennedy points out that the court intentionally held the claims under FHA and suggests the court to incorporate fairness by requiring the plaintiff to prove that it is the defendant’s policies that violated the fair housing. In identifying cases of disparate claims, it is important to ensure the plaintiff does not choose to use the racial quotes. It is the duty of the court to ensure the plaintiff has made out some prima facie in presenting the claim. In my opinion, the courts should ensure no misinterpretation made inject unnecessary racial considerations in every housing decision made. If courts find disparate claim liability, the solutions made must be in the constitution. The solutions ordered should be neutral such that they do not impact further discrimination, and the offensive practices are eliminated.


Discriminations should not be encouraged in the United States and any party or person who practices it should be held accountable by the government. The disparate claims should be carefully judged so that it does not harm those intended to be protected. This is perfectly represented by the process carried out by the case presented in court by the Inclusive Communities Project. First the project examines the problem of variation in offering a tax credit, it then recognizes the damage created by this act which is going against the law and offending the society. Finally, it takes the case to court to eliminate the problem. More so, the court should properly identify the validity of the case and hold those on the offensive side accountable.