The final rule adds paragraph (d)(1)(iii) that was not included in the proposed rule to reflect mandatory requirements adopted by an organization. This may include agency guidelines, as HUD, in accordance with Executive Order 13891, recognizes that a defendant may be required to follow the Agency`s guidelines if they are so binding, or that the guidelines have been incorporated into a binding authority, such as a contract. To this end, HUD also added at this point in the final rule that the defendant must demonstrate that the policy or practice is reasonably necessary to comply with the binding authority. The defendant should not be required to prove that his policy is the only possible way to respond to the request of third parties, as long as his policy is reasonably necessary. Similarly, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) adds to this final rule that this defence requires the defendant to prove that the impugned action was reasonably necessary to comply with the restraining right or order, which means that there may be other reasons why the defendant may have chosen the course of action and that there may have been other means: comply with the restrictive legal system. as long as the contested act was reasonably necessary to comply with the law or the restraining order. Segregation is the practice of requiring separate housing, education, and other services for people of color. Racial segregation was enshrined in law several times in 18th and 19th century America, as some believed that blacks and whites were unable to live together. Approaching . Despite Supreme Court decisions such as Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) and Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968) prohibiting the exclusion of African Americans or other minorities from certain neighborhoods, race-based housing models were still in place in the late 1960s.
Those who challenged them often encountered resistance, hostility and even violence. Commentators have written that the proposed rule would violate the essential functions of the judiciary, including the discretion of the courts to consider the unique facts of each case, particularly with respect to land use, loans and insurance claims. One commenter noted that the court in the Inclusive Communities case stated that “no disastrous consequences have arisen from several decades of different impacts,” while another commenter explained that HUD`s argument that companies can use racial quotas to avoid different liability under the 2013 rule is not supported by evidence. Other commentators rejected the proposed rule, arguing that the 2013 rule had reviewed and rejected many of the changes that the proposed rule would now make, explaining its reasoning in the process, unlike the proposed rule. Commentators have provided numerous examples, such as HUD`s rejection of a proposal that huD should remove “continued segregation” as a recognized discriminatory effect, arguing that “eliminating segregation is at the heart of why the Fair Housing Act was enacted” and that “all federal courts of appeal that have considered the issue, agreed.” [53] Commentators have stated that the proposed rule does not explain, recognize or identify these previous findings. These commentators wrote that the proposed rule does not attempt to justify its changes as good policy or as the best interpretation of the law as it existed in 2013. Commentators also noted that inclusive communities only discuss racial quotas, but this proposed section extends data collection to all protected classes, discouraging data collection. Other commentators also said that while the Supreme Court`s decision discourages the collection of information on protected classes for fear that it will lead to quotas, it has also recognized that racial awareness can help local housing authorities promote diversity and combat racial isolation with racially neutral instruments and help entities shape policies.
ensure that all groups have an equitable opportunity to participate in programs. One commenter also explained that in Wards Cove,[55] the Supreme Court upheld the data collection and concluded that some employers maintain records that disclose the impact of selection procedures on opportunities based on race, gender or ethnic group, and that the court approved the use of these records by plaintiffs in litigation. This commenter added that, although quotas are mentioned by the Court, neither Inclusive Communities nor Wards Cove are concerned that the collection of information on protected categories was relevant to establishing such quotas. One commenter noted that the proposed rule does not explain why data collection is equated with the establishment of racial quotas, since federal data collection has existed for decades and has not led to such quotas. [56] One commentator stated that HUD allows public funds to fund discrimination in violation of the law, and another commentator stated that the proposed rule constitutes a violation of human rights. Another commenter explained that the proposed rule would result in fewer investigations by HUD`s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Commentators explained that HUD should not adopt the proposed rule because the 2013 rule is consistent with HUD`s mission, including the legal obligation to promote fair housing under the Fair Housing Act, the U.S. Constitution, and historical precedent that interprets different effects under the Fair Housing Act. One commenter explained that the proposed changes will bring uncertainty to the credit industry and jeopardize innovation.
Another commenter explained that the proposed rule could challenge discriminatory zoning and land use planning decisions regarding prefabricated houses. The commenter explained that the 2013 rule has played an important role in educating communities, including public servants, about the unintended consequences of local zoning and land use decisions that may prohibit the availability of affordable housing, and was concerned that the proposed rule would negate the educational aspects offered by the 2013 rule. The federal government must recognize its role by systematically refraining from investing in communities of color and preventing residents of these communities from accessing the same services and resources as their white counterparts. The impact of these policy decisions is still felt today, as racial inequality still permeates land use patterns in most U.S. cities and virtually every aspect of housing markets. One of the central purposes of the Fair Housing Act, when Congress passed it in 1968, was to prohibit racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. Yet, more than 30 years later, racial discrimination in housing is still a problem. The majority of the Department of Justice`s test or practical cases involve allegations of racial discrimination. Sometimes housing providers try to cover up their discrimination by giving false information about the availability of housing, either by saying that nothing is available, or by directing apartment applicants to specific areas based on race. Individuals who receive such erroneous information or misdirection may not know that they have been discriminated against.
The Department of Justice has filed numerous complaints alleging this type of discrimination based on race or colour. In addition, the ministry`s Fair Housing Screening Program seeks to expose this type of hidden discrimination and hold those responsible. Most mortgage cases filed by the ministry under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act reported discrimination based on race or colour. Some of the ministry`s cases also claimed that communities and other local government agencies violated the Fair Housing Act by denying permits or zoning changes for residential developments, or banning them to predominantly minority neighborhoods because potential residents were supposed to be primarily African-American. (d) COOPERATION BETWEEN SECRETARIAT AND EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND AGENCIES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AND ACTIVITIES AIMED AT PROMOTING EQUITABLE HOUSING. All executive departments and agencies manage their housing and urban development programs and activities (including any federal agency that has regulatory or supervisory powers over financial institutions) in a manner that supports the objectives of this Title and work with the Secretary to promote those objectives. Other commentators supported the proposed rule, stating that without the proposed rule, parties would be forced to adopt or pursue strategies according to very different standards of criminal discrimination, which would increase uncertainty and leave the decision exclusively to the courts.
