Otero v. New York City Housing Authority
484 F.2d 1122 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public housing authority's constitutional and statutory duty to foster racial integration may override its own tenant selection regulations, but the authority bears a heavy burden to prove that adherence to its regulation would almost certainly lead to the creation of a 'pocket ghetto' and the eventual segregation of the surrounding community.
Facts:
- The New York City Housing Authority ('the Authority') constructed two low-income apartment buildings on the Seward Park Extension Urban Renewal Area on Manhattan's Lower East Side.
- Approximately 1,852 families, the majority of whom were non-white, were relocated from the 14-square-block urban renewal site.
- The Authority and other city agencies repeatedly assured these relocated families that they would have first priority to return to the new housing built on the site.
- The Authority's own regulation, GM 1810, provided a first priority for admission to former residents of an entire urban renewal area, not just the specific project site.
- Upon completion of the buildings, the Authority leased 161 of the 360 apartments to former site occupants but did not honor the applications of 322 other eligible former site occupants.
- The Authority then leased or committed the remaining 171 apartments to applicants who were not former site occupants, most of whom were white.
- Among the non-priority tenants were 48 Jewish families who were granted transfers to be closer to their synagogue.
- The Authority justified its actions by claiming that adhering to its priority regulation would result in an 80% non-white tenant population in the project, which it argued would act as a racial 'tipping factor' causing segregation in the community.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of non-white former site occupants sued the New York City Housing Authority ('the Authority') and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the Authority had violated its own regulation and denied plaintiffs due process.
- A class representing 171 families who were not former site occupants but had received leases or commitments from the Authority successfully moved to intervene as defendants.
- All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs against the Authority and intervenors, holding that the duty to integrate could not be used to deprive a minority group of housing.
- The district court also granted summary judgment for HUD, dismissing the complaint against it.
- The Authority and the intervenor-defendants (appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 public housing authority's constitutional and statutory duty to foster racial integration override its own regulation granting priority admission to a class of applicants, when following the regulation would allegedly result in a high concentration of non-white residents in a new housing project?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield, Circuit Judge
Yes, a housing authority's duty to foster racial integration can override its own tenant-selection regulations. While the Authority has a paramount constitutional and statutory duty to promote integrated public housing, it does not have an automatic right to disregard its own regulations. The duty to integrate is not a 'one-way street' limited to introducing non-whites into white areas; it also includes preventing the creation of segregated 'pocket ghettos' that could 'tip' a community. However, because the Authority's regulation created a due process interest for the former site residents, the Authority bears a heavy burden of proof. It must show that adherence to the regulation would in all likelihood result in a violation of its duties under the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act by creating a segregated community.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the affirmative duty to integrate under the Fair Housing Act is not limited to desegregating predominantly white areas but also extends to preventing new concentrations of minority residents that could 'tip' an already integrated community toward segregation. It validates the use of race-conscious tenant selection to maintain racial balance but places a significant evidentiary burden on the housing authority to justify such measures. The ruling requires a housing authority to prove a direct conflict between its specific regulations and its overarching duty to integrate, ensuring that race-based decisions are not made on mere speculation about community response but on solid evidence of impending ghettoization.
