Hills v. Gautreaux
1976 U.S. LEXIS 46, 425 U.S. 284, 47 L. Ed. 2d 792 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court's remedial order for an intra-city constitutional violation can extend beyond the city's boundaries if the remedy is directed at a defendant found to have committed the violation, such as a federal agency, and does not impermissibly coerce or restructure local governmental units that were not implicated in the violation.
Facts:
- Between 1950 and 1965, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) selected sites for family public housing almost exclusively within areas known as the 'Negro Ghetto'.
- CHA deliberately chose these sites to avoid placing Black families in white neighborhoods, which resulted in a racially segregated public housing system.
- Ninety-nine percent of CHA's family housing units were located in Black neighborhoods and were occupied by Black tenants.
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) knowingly provided financial assistance and other support for CHA's racially discriminatory public housing program, despite having the authority to reject such projects.
Procedural Posture:
- Black tenants and applicants for public housing (Respondents) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
- The District Court entered summary judgment against CHA, finding it had engaged in unconstitutional racial discrimination in site selection and tenant assignment.
- Initially, the District Court dismissed the complaint against HUD, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding HUD had also violated the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.
- On remand, the District Court consolidated the cases but denied the Respondents' motion for a metropolitan-area remedy, limiting its remedial order to the city of Chicago.
- The Respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court again, holding that a metropolitan-area remedy was required.
- HUD (Petitioner) was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the permissibility of the inter-district remedy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court's remedial order for a constitutional violation of racial discrimination in public housing, committed by a federal agency (HUD) within a city's limits, impermissibly extend beyond those city limits when it requires the agency to use its programs in the surrounding suburban areas where local governments were not found to be violators?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, the remedial order does not impermissibly extend beyond city limits. A remedial order that extends beyond a city's boundaries is permissible in this context because it is directed at a proven constitutional violator, HUD, and does not restructure or coerce non-liable suburban government entities. This case is critically different from Milliken v. Bradley, where the proposed remedy would have consolidated separate and autonomous suburban school districts that had not been found to have engaged in any constitutional violation. Here, HUD itself was a violator and has the authority to operate across the entire metropolitan housing market. An order directing HUD to use its existing programs to create housing opportunities in the suburbs is commensurate with the violation, as the relevant geographic area for housing options is the broader housing market, not just the city's political boundaries. Such a decree would not force suburban governments to act but would simply guide HUD's discretionary funding and program implementation, respecting local autonomy over zoning and planning.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
The remedial order is permissible. Justice Marshall joined the Court's opinion but wrote separately to express his continued disagreement with the Court's prior decision in Milliken v. Bradley. He believed that Milliken unduly limited the equitable power of federal courts to remedy official segregation and joined the majority's opinion in this case except for any part that appeared to reaffirm Milliken.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of Milliken v. Bradley, which had been seen as a major barrier to metropolitan-wide remedies for segregation. By distinguishing between a remedy that coerces innocent local governments and one that directs a liable federal agency to use its existing authority, the Court created a crucial pathway for addressing segregation on a regional basis. The ruling prevents federal agencies from containing the remedy for their unconstitutional conduct within the political boundaries where the harm was concentrated. This precedent is vital for future housing and potentially environmental justice litigation, allowing remedies to match the realistic geographic scope of the problem, such as a metropolitan housing or labor market, rather than being artificially confined by city limits.
Unlock the full brief for Hills v. Gautreaux