Appellate Section - Housing

Briefs and Opinions

• Pickett v. City of Cleveland (6th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The placement of a lien can make housing unavailable within the meaning of Section 3604(a)’s catchall phrase

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	10/11/24

• Group Home on Gibson Island v. Gibson Island Corp. (4th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court misapplied the legal standards for determining whether plaintiffs satisfied their burden to show that their requested accommodation was necessary and reasonable
  • The district court erred in concluding that GIC did not refuse plaintiffs’ accommodation request

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	03/26/24

• City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • Laws prohibiting sleeping on public property violate the Eighth Amendment if they are applied in a manner that prevents an individual without available shelter from residing in the jurisdiction
  • Robinson requires a particularized inquiry into the circumstances of the individuals to whom the City’s ordinances are applied

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 144 S. Ct. 2202	06/28/24
  Brief as Amicus	03/04/24

• Connecticut Fair Housing Center v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions (2d Cir.) - Amicus

  • Tenant-screening companies are subject to 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) because they can effectively “make [housing] unavailable”

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	11/24/23

• HUD v. Felder Peter King Estate of Ward Protectee (8th Cir.) - Petitioner

  • This Court should enforce the January 6, 2023, final agency order

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Judgment	05/26/23
  Motion for Summary Enforcement of Final Agency Order	05/17/23
  Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order	04/19/23

• Women's Elevated Sober Living v. City of Plano, Texas (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court properly decided — and certainly did not clearly err in finding — that an accommodation is therapeutically necessary to afford WESL residents an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice
  • None of the City’s arguments justifies a different outcome

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 86 F.4th 1108	11/20/23
  Brief as Amicus	03/17/23

• Dangtran v. HUD (5th Cir./E.D. Tex.) - Petitioner/Defendant

  • The final agency order requires respondents, among other things, to pay damages and civil penalties
  • This Court should enforce the December 9, 2022, final agency order
  • District courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review final agency decisions under the FHA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	07/05/24
  Motion for Summary Enforcement of Final Agency Order	04/25/24
  Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order	02/27/24
  District Court Order, available at 2023 WL 6162744	09/21/23
  Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss	05/03/23
  Motion to Dismiss	03/13/23

• Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center v. Azalea Garden Properties (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The predictably-will-cause standard is compatible with Lincoln Property and ICP
  • The district court correctly held that LaFHAC properly pleaded that Azalea Garden’s criminal background screening policy had a disparate impact based on race
  • LaFHAC has adequately pleaded that Azalea Garden maintains a blanket ban on tenants with criminal backgrounds

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 82 F.4th 345	09/14/23
  Brief as Amicus	12/23/22

• Gilead Community Services v. Town of Cromwell (2d Cir.) - Amicus

  • The FHA authorized the jury’s punitive damages award
  • The town can be held vicariously liable for its officials’ acts in violation of the FHA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 112 F.4th 93	08/12/24
  Brief as Amicus	12/20/22

• Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park (4th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court erred in concluding that Waples satisfied its burden under step two of the FHA’s disparate impact burden-shifting test because the court failed to determine whether Waples had the requisite mens rea to be subject to criminal liability for harboring

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision (AMENDED), reported at 91 F.4th 270	01/24/24
  Brief as Amicus	09/15/22

• United States v. Rupp (8th Cir.) - Appellee

  • A reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Rupp acted with reckless disregard for the Erwin-Teals’ rights when he evicted them because they had a baby
  • The jury’s punitive-damages award of $60,000 does not violate due process

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 68 F.4th 1075	05/19/23
  Brief as Appellee	06/24/22

• Klossner v. IADU Table Mound MHP (8th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Defendants’ acceptance of rental assistance under the Housing Choice Program is a reasonable and necessary accommodation of Klossner’s disabilities

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 65 F.4th 349	04/10/23
  Brief as Amicus	03/07/22

• Raw Recovery v. Costa Mesa (9th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the sober living homes satisfied the “actual disability” prong of the definition of disability
  • The district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the sober living homes satisfied the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 56 F.4th 802	01/03/23
  Brief as Amicus	11/29/21

• SoCal Recovery v. Costa Mesa (9th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the sober living homes satisfied the “actual disability” prong of the definition of disability
  • The district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the sober living homes satisfied the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 56 F.4th 802	01/03/23
  Brief as Amicus	11/29/21

• Fox v. Gaines (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in dismissing Fox’s claims on the ground that the FHA does not prohibit sexual harassment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 4 F.4th 1293	07/16/21
  Brief as Amicus	09/30/20

• Graham v. HUD (3d Cir.) – Cross-Petitioner/Respondent

  • The final agency order requires petitioner John Graham to pay to Shon’tonette Leary and her son in civil penalties for engaging in what the Secretary determined to be “highly egregious” discriminatory conduct in the process of renting an apartment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	03/02/21
  Motion for Enforcement of Agency Order and Dismissal of Petition	07/31/20
  Cross-Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order	05/21/20

• United States v. Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al. (9th Cir.) – Appellee

  • The district court correctly held the Towns liable under 42 U.S.C. 14141 for the pattern of constitutional violations committed by their joint police department
  • The district court committed no error, much less reversible error, in concluding that the Towns’ joint police department repeatedly arrested non-FLDS residents without probable cause
  • The district court committed no error, much less reversible error, in admitting FLDS leaders’ various out-of-court statements

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 935 F.3d 804	08/26/19
  Brief as Appellee	04/19/18

• Edwards v. Gene Salter Properties (8th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ reasonable accommodation claim under the Fair Housing Act

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 739 F. App'x 357	10/09/18
  Brief as Amicus	03/08/18

• Valencia v. City of Springfield (7th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court correctly determined that the City’s zoning code likely violates the FHA because it intentionally discriminates in its treatment of group homes for up to five unrelated individuals with disabilities
  • The district court correctly determined that the City’s denial of a reasonable accommodation likely violates the FHA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 883 F.3d 959	03/01/18
  Brief as Amicus	12/18/17

• In re: Asociacíon de Titulares de Condominio Castillo (1st-BAP Cir.) – Appellee

  • The bankruptcy court correctly dismissed the Asociacíon’s bankruptcy petition
  • The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 581 B.R. 346	02/08/18
  Brief as Appellee	07/31/17

• Francis v. Kings Park Manor (2d Cir.) – Amicus

  • In deciding this appeal, the court should not rely upon the 2016 HUD Rule
  • The Fair Housing Act reaches post-acquisition discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges, services, or facilities in connection with a rental or sale of a dwelling
  • HUD's rule provides that housing providers – regardless of their own discriminatory animus – are liable for failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party, where the housing provider knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct, and had the power to correct it

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 992 F.3d 67	03/25/21
  Brief as Amicus En Banc	05/08/20
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 944 F.3d 370	12/06/19
  Brief as Amicus in Response to the Court's Invitation	10/31/16

• Bank of America v. Miami; Wells Fargo v. Miami (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • A person who satisfies Article III’s standing requirements may file a civil action under the FHA
  • Respondent has adequately alleged that its injuries were proximately caused by petitioners’ discriminatory practices

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 137 S. Ct. 1296	05/01/17
  Brief as Amicus	10/07/16

• Paulk v. Georgia Department of Transportation (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The text of Sections 3604(b) and (f)(2) supports their application to post-acquisition discrimination
  • HUD regulations support application of Sections 3604(b) and (f)(2) to post-acquisition discrimination
  • Courts have correctly interpreted Sections 3604(b) and (f)(2) to encompass post-acquisition discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	03/14/17
  Brief as Amicus	09/06/16

• Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Association (3d Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in concluding that 42 U.S.C. 1988(a) governs FHA claims
  • Application of federal common law fulfills a need for national uniformity, meets the objectives of federal civil rights statutes, and avoids disrupting commercial relationships that rely on state law
  • Under federal common law, FHA claims survive a plaintiff’s death

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 853 F.3d 96	03/31/17
  Brief as Amicus	11/23/15

• Austin Apartment Association v. City of Austin (5th Cir.) – Amicus

  • An Austin Ordinance that prohibits landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants based on "source of income," including federal housing subsidies, is not preempted by the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	08/06/15
  Brief as Amicus	07/13/15

• Castillo Condominium Association v. HUD (1st Cir.) – Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

  • The Court should grant the Secretary's cross-application to enforce the final agency order of October 2, 2014
  • Substantial evidence supports the Secretary's determination that Castillo Condominium violated Sections 804(f)(1) and (f)(2) of the FHA
  • The ALJ correctly denied Castillo's pre-hearing motion to dismiss the charge based on res judicata and motion in limine to exclude the testimony and expert written report of Giménez's treating psychiatrist

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 821 F.3d 92	05/02/16
  Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner	06/17/15
  Cross-Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order	02/10/15

• Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Sections 804(a) and 805(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 2507	06/25/15
  Brief as Amicus	12/23/14

• Gomez v. Quicken Loans (9th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's disparate treatment claim under the FHA
  • SSDI letters that do not contain expiration dates sufficiently establish that the disability benefits would likely continue and lenders may not require SSDI recipients to provide medical documentation as additional proof that the disability benefits would continue

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 629 F. App'x 799	11/02/15
  Brief as Amicus	01/16/14

• Township of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • The Court should not review petitioners' claim that the Fair Housing Act does not encompass disparate-impact liability, noting that all 11 circuits to have decided the issue have permitted such claims
  • The Department of Housing and Urban Development, consistent with its longstanding position, has recently promulgated a regulation providing for disparate-impact liability. Because the new regulation lays out a burden-shifting analysis for deciding such claims, the Court need not review any circuit split on the appropriate burdens of proof
  • Because this case was decided without the benefit of the new regulation and respondents had not raised their current claims below, the case was not an appropriate vehicle for resolving the questions presented in the petition for certiorari

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed, reported at 134 S. Ct. 636	11/15/13
  Brief as Amicus	10/28/13
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 133 S. Ct. 2824	06/17/13
  Brief as Amicus	05/17/13

• Corey v. HUD (4th Cir.) – Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

  • Substantial evidence supports the Secretary's determination that Corey violated Sections 3604(c), 3604(f)(1), and 3604(f)(2) of the Fair Housing Act
  • The Secretary acted within his discretion in ordering $18,000 in emotional distress damages, the maximum $16,000 civil penalty, and injunctive relief
  • This Court should grant the Secretary's cross-application for enforcement of the final agency order
  • Petitioner/Cross-Respondent failed to provide sufficient information in support of the stay request

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 719 F.3d 322	07/05/13
  Brief as Respondent/Cross- Petitioner	12/03/12
  Court of Appeals Order	10/22/12
  Response to Motion to Stay	10/15/12
  Cross Application for Enforcement of Final Agency Order	10/04/12

• Miami Valley Fair Housing Center v. The Connor Group, et al. (6th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law by applying an incorrect legal standard in analyzing plaintiff's FHA claim that required the jury to determine if the ad focuses on the suitability of the property to the renter, rather than the acceptability of the renter to the owner
  • Plaintiff needed only to show that the ad indicates to the ordinary reader an unlawful preference, and that this ad on its face shows such a preference based on sex and familial status
  • The jury instructions contained the same erroneous legal standard

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 725 F.3d 571	08/05/13
  Brief as Amicus	06/22/12

• Magner v. Gallagher (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • The Fair Housing Act encompasses disparate impact claims, as evidenced by the statutory text and structure and HUD's authoritative construction, which is reasonably entitled to Chevron deference
  • Such claims should be analyzed through burden shifting comparable to the analysis used in Title VII disparate impact claims
  • The respondents here failed to produce sufficient evidence at summary judgment to make out a prima facie case

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Dismissed, reported at 132 S. Ct. 1306	02/14/12
  Brief as Amicus	12/29/11

• Pacific Shores Properties, LLC, et al. v. City of Newport Beach and Newport Coast Recovery LLC, et al. v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in requiring plaintiffs to show that they were treated differently than similarly situated individuals who do not have disabilities to prove intentional discrimination based on disability
  • The district court misconstrued plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claims and applied an erroneous standard in determining whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial concerning the City's discriminatory intent

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 730 F.3d 1142	09/20/13
  Brief as Amicus	10/11/11

• Maze v. HUD (11th Cir.) – Petitioner

  • The owner of the rental home is vicariously liable for the discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	01/06/12
  Application for Enforcement	08/01/11

• United States v. Hurt (8th Cir.) – Appellant

  • The court erred by failing to determine whether the action as a whole was "substantially justified," and by failing to recognize that a pattern or practice case, by its very nature, is a single claim, not a collection of individual claims
  • The court failed to recognize that given its denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment and a directed verdict, there is a presumption that the government's case was substantially justified

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 676 F.3d 649	04/12/12
  Reply Brief	08/23/11
  Brief as Appellant	06/17/11

• Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al. v. Township of Mount Holly, et al. (3d Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to state a prima facie case

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 658 F.3d 375	09/13/11
  Brief as Amicus	06/03/11

• Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission (9th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The provisions of Section 804(a) & (b) of the Fair Housing Act apply to conduct that does not involve the sale or rental of a dwelling
  • The district court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that defendants' homeless shelters do not qualify as "dwellings" as defined in the Fair Housing Act
  • The religious exemption in the Act applies to defendant's conduct with respect to both the shelters and the rehabilitation program

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 657 F.3d 988	09/19/11
  Brief as Amicus	04/29/11

• Balvage v. Ryderwood Improvement and Service Ass'n (9th Cir.) – Amicus

  • District court's decision is correct insofar as it found that RISA violated HOPA until September 2007, but a remand is appropriate because of inadequate findings as to whether the community met HOPA's three criteria after September 2007

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 642 F.3d 765	04/27/11
  Brief as Amicus	02/18/11

• United States v. Hialeah Housing Authority (11th Cir.) – Appellant

  • The district court erred in concluding that even assuming that Mr. Rodriguez was disabled, “no reasonable jury could conclude that defendant knew or should have known Mr. Rodriguez was disabled and that HHA knew the requested accommodation was necessary.”
  • The facts are sufficient to establish that HHA knew or should have known that Mr. Rodriguez was disabled and requested an accommodation
  • Therefore HHA had an obligation to engage in an interactive process to try to resolve the request

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 418 F. App'x 872	03/22/11
  Reply Brief as Appellant	11/08/10
  Brief as Appellant	08/09/10

• United States v. Billingsley (5th Cir.) – Appellee

  • The district court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction enjoining the residential community from removing or tampering with the footbridge built by an individual with a disability on land owned by the residential community
  • The district court properly exercised its discretion to issue preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo
  • Rehearing en banc is appropriate in this case because the Fifth Circuit’s ruling (1) conflicts with Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting the exception to the Anti-Injunction Act for the United States as plaintiff and (2) erroneously holds that that Section 3612(o) limits the United States to the kind of equitable relief a private party suing on his or her own behalf could obtain

   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied	10/20/10
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc	09/30/10
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 615 F.3d 404	08/16/10
  Brief as Appellee	01/13/10

• Fair Housing Resources Center v. DJM’S 4 Reasons Ltd., et al. (6th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in refusing to give a reasonable accommodation instruction
  • The court erred in instructing the jury it must find that the testers’ claimed disability was the motivating factor for defendant’s statements

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 499 F. App'x 414	09/06/12
  Brief as Amicus	07/15/10

• Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc. (D.C. Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff, a non-profit fair housing organization, lacked standing to file suit on its own behalf to enforce the Fair Housing Act

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 633 F.3d 1136	03/08/11
  Brief as Amicus	07/13/10

• HUD & Guillén v. Astralis Condominium Ass'n (1st Cir.) – Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

  • ALJ correctly found Astralis violated the Fair Housing Act with respect to parking spaces for individuals with disabilities
  • Relief was appropriate

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 620 F.3d 62	09/16/10
  Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner	03/08/10
  Application for Enforcement	11/18/09

• Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al. (9th Cir. en banc) – Amicus

  • The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the underwriting and/or pricing of homeowner's insurance
  • Reverse-preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims under federal statutes, but rather it instructs courts how to construe federal statutes

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 600 F.3d 1201	04/09/10
  Brief as Amicus	01/29/10

• United States v. Thouvenot, Wade, Moerchen, Inc. (7th Cir.) -- Appellant

  • United States was “substantially justified” in naming the site developer as a defendant, and the site developer did not "incur" attorney's fees that its liability insurance carrier paid
  • The district court erred in ruling that the United States was not "substantially justified" in seeking to hold TWM liable for its participation in the inaccessible design and construction of Applegate Apartments
  • Attorney's fees that TWM’s insurer was obligated to pay and did pay were not "incurred by" TWN under EAJA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 596 F.3d 378	02/18/10
  Reply Brief as Appellant	09/25/09
  Brief as Appellant	07/13/09

• Nelson v. HUD (9th Cir.) -- Brief as Respondent

  • HUD correctly interpreted its own regulations to require, upon proof of noncompliance with HUD’s Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, that petitioners demonstrate compliance with some other objective measure of accessibility.
  • Montana Fair Housing has standing under the Act
  • The ALJ’s initial decision dismissing the suit against the Nelsons is not HUD’s final order, and thus, not reviewable
  • HUD’s ruling that front entrances must be made accessible correctly interprets the Act
  • HUD properly held Bernard Nelson liable as a co-owner of the property;
  • Petitioners are not protected by their holding company from the court’s jurisdiction to enforce the remedial order’s retrofitting requirements

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 320 F. App'x 635	03/26/09
  Brief as Respondent	02/11/08

• Bloch v. Frischholz (7th Cir.) (en banc) -- Amicus

  • The Fair Housing Act and its regulations reach post-acquisition discrimination
  • A jury could have found that the owners’ association’s interpretation and enforcement of the rule was motivated by religious and racial animus

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 587 F.3d 771	11/13/09
  Brief as Amicus	01/16/09

• HUD v. Fung and Ho (7th Cir.) -- Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

  • On petition for review, Ho argues that the ALJ’s default judgment of liability and assessment of damages against her deprived her of due process. Fung argues that the ALJ’s default judgment of liability and assessment of damages arbitrarily departed from HUD and Circuit precedent. The Division responded to these claims and cross-petition for enforcement of HUD’s final order

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	09/12/12
  Application for Enforcement	08/08/12
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 569 F.3d 677	06/23/09
  Brief as Respondent/Cross-Petitioner	01/14/09

• Reed v. Peñasquitos Casablanca Owner's Ass'n (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The Fair Housing Act reaches harassment that occurs after the initial rental or purchase of housing
  • The district court erred in holding that plaintiffs harmed by the harassment of another can never state a claim under the FHA
  • The district court erred in holding that a victim must endure or witness overtly sexual behavior in order to recover in a case involving harassment on the basis of sex
  • The district court erred in holding that a homeowner’s association’s mere inaction after it is notified of an employee’s possible harassment can never justify an award of punitive damages

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 381 F. App'x 674	06/02/10
  Court of Appeals Order	07/16/09
  Second Brief as Amicus	03/17/09
  Brief as Amicus	11/06/08

• United States v. Mullins (6th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • Any error that may have occurred during the cross-examination was invited error, and therefore is not reviewable
  • In the alternative, Mullins is unable to establish plain error
  • The record is not sufficient to allow the court of appeals to address Mullins’ ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, and, even if it were, Mullins is unable to demonstrate prejudice because the evidence supporting his conviction was overwhelming

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	01/13/09
  Brief as Appellee	06/18/08

• McClain v. Shelter General Insurance Co. (8th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 537 F.3d 961	08/12/08
  Reply Brief as Amicus	09/17/07
  Brief as Amicus	07/02/07

• Saunders v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (8th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 537 F.3d 961	08/12/08
  Reply Brief as Amicus	09/17/07
  Brief as Amicus	07/02/07

• Saunders v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 537 F.3d 961	08/12/08
  Reply Brief as Amicus	09/17/07
  Brief as Amicus	07/02/07

• George v. Colony Lakes Property Owners Ass'n (N.D. Ill.) -- Amicus

  • 24 C.F.R. 100.400(c)(2) permissibly interprets 42 U.S.C. 3617 to reach postacquisition discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  District Court Decision, available at 2006 WL 1735345	09/26/06
  Brief as Amicus	04/14/06

• Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Does 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) or 28 C.F.R. 41.53 apply to disputes about zoning in suits under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
  • Do 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) and 28 C.F.R. 41.53, if applicable to zoning disputes, create an entitlement to accommodation in the absence of intentional discrimination or disparate impact?
  • If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is yes, are the regulations valid?

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 465 F.3d 737	09/26/06
  Brief as Amicus on Rehearing En Banc	11/23/05

• White v. HUD (7th Cir.) -- Respondent

  • Substantial evidence supports the ALJ'S decision that the August 1998 telephone conversation did not violate 42 U.S.C. 3604(C)
  • The ALJ did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant petitioner's request to amend the charge of discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 475 F.3d 898	02/02/07
  Brief as Respondent	08/29/05

• Richard & Milton Grant Co. v. Memphis Center for Independent Living (6th Cir.) -- Respondent

  • Defendants' petitions for interlocutory appeal should be rejected for failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
  • There are no controlling issues of law as to which a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists
  • An interlocutory appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation

   

  Document	Date
  Petitions for Permission to Appeal Denied	11/04/04
  Answer in Opposition as Respondent	09/02/04

• United States v. Garden Homes Management Corp. (3d Cir.) -- Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sanction of $1,000 per day for 208 days for defendants' failure to comply with the consent order and the court's first contempt order

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 104 F. App'x 796	07/19/04
  Brief as Appellee	01/12/04

• United States v. City of Jackson (5th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees and expenses as compensation for the City's violation of the consent decree

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 359 F.3d 727	02/04/04
  Brief as Appellee	09/12/03

• United States v. Edward Rose & Sons (6th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction
  • The design of the 19 proposed buildings violates the Fair Housing Act
  • The district court had discretion to enter a preliminary injunction because the United States demonstrated at least a reasonable probability that a statutory violation had occurred or was about to occur
  • Even if the traditional equitable factors applied here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 384 F.3d 258	08/25/04
  Brief as Appellee	08/18/03

• HUD v. Kocerka (7th Cir.) -- Petitioner

  • Whether this Court should set aside the order of enforcement it issued after Respondents failed to answer the third show cause order

   

  Document	Date
  Petition for Rehearing Denied	03/04/02
  Response of the United States to Petition for Rehearing	02/12/02

• Fair Housing of Marin County v. Jack Combs (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Fair housing group established standing under the Fair Housing Act and Article III by demonstrating that the defendant's illegal housing discrimination injured the group's fair housing educational and counseling program, requiring the group to undertake remedial programs in the community to mitigate the damage

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 285 F.3d 899	04/09/02
  Brief as Amicus	03/26/01

• Groome Resources, Ltd. v. Parish of Jefferson (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor

  • Fair Housing Act is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
  • Tenth Amendment no bar to application of Fair Housing Act to county
  • Act is not unconstitutionally vague

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 234 F. 3d 192	11/22/00
  Brief as Intervenor	02/22/00

• Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Landlords' Free Exercise Clause challenge to local fair housing law must fail because landlord did not make colorable claim that fair housing law constituted a taking of property or violated First Amendment right to free speech

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 192 F.3d 1208	08/04/00
  Brief as Amicus En Banc	12/22/99

• Veles v. Lindow (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Fair Housing Act prohibits actions with discriminatory effects on the basis of national origin
  • English-only rule imposed by landlord may violate Fair Housing Act

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 243 F.3d 552	11/01/00
  Brief as Amicus	09/23/99

• LA ACORN Fair Housing v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not state, law
  • Punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act can be awarded without an award of compensatory damages

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 211 F.3d 298	05/15/00
  Brief as Amicus	06/10/99

• Alexander v. Riga (3d Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not state, law
  • Punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act can be awarded without an award of compensatory damages
  • Showing of intentional discrimination is sufficient for award punitive damages

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 208 F.3d 419	03/22/00
  Brief as Amicus	06/03/99

• United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc. (8th Cir. and S. Ct.) -- Appellee

  • Evidence sufficient to show pattern and practice of discrimination
  • Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not state, law
  • Appropriate to examine defendants' wealth in assessing punitive damages
  • $25,000 in punitive damages per defendant did not violate due process

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 529 U.S. 1018	03/20/00
  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari	02/14/00
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 184 F.3d 924	07/09/99
  Brief as Appellee	11/20/98

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other