The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, a case that will determine whether the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) applies to conduct that, although not intentionally discriminatory, has an allegedly disparate impact on protected groups. Assertions that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA are difficult to square with the statutory language, which bars housing discrimination “because of” race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. The phrase “because of” suggests volition by the defendant, not merely that the effects of his actions were felt more strongly by members of protected groups. Proponents of disparate-impact liability frequently respond that whatever the scope of the FHA when first adopted in 1968, Congress later expanded the statute by acquiescing to an unbroken line of court and Executive Branch decisions that had interpreted the FHA as encompassing disparate-impact claims.
But an examination of the federal appeals court decisions cited by the Solicitor General and other disparate-impact claims proponents indicates that lower courts’ endorsement of such claims has been anything but uniform. Thus, putting to one side whether it is ever appropriate to discern the meaning of a federal statute based on evidence of Congress’s inaction in the wake of decisions construing the statute, the case for using that method of statutory interpretation in this instance is particularly weak.
In making the case for congressional acquiescence, the Solicitor General’s brief focuses on 1988, when Congress amended several FHA provisions but did not amend the “because of” language set forth in 42 U.S.C.§ 3604(a). According to the Solicitor General, “Between the enactment of the FHA in 1968 and its amendment in 1988, all nine of the courts of appeals to consider the issue concluded that the Act authorizes disparate impact claims.” Based on that history, he asserts, the 1988 amendments “confirm” that Congress sanctioned disparate-impact claims under the FHA. Continue reading
Here’s some things you may have missed from Washington Legal Foundation during the December 2014 holidays season.
WLF Amicus Briefs:
- King v. Burwell (On December 29, 2014, WLF asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling that, if upheld, would allow IRS to appropriate billions of dollars a year without authorization from Congress.)
- In re: Deepwater Horizon (On December 24, 2014, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, urging it to remove the court-appointed Claims Administrator who evaluates all claims filed by those seeking to recover economic losses suffered as a result of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. )
WLF Legal Pulse Posts
Featured Expert Column − Complex Serial and Mass Tort Litigation
by Richard O. Faulk, Hollingsworth LLP*
It’s been a long wait for those who believe the federal Clean Air Act preempts public nuisance claims under state common law.
When the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Connecticut v. American Electric Power in 2011, it refused to rule on the preemption issue—leaving the question for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to resolve on remand.1 Before that could happen, however, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints—and the opportunity vanished.2
When a federal district court granted dismissal of a public nuisance claim in Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, the opportunity rose again. Hopes were high that the Third Circuit would affirm the dismissal, but alas, the court reversed. Nevertheless, the case rose to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. Numerous amicus curiae briefs were submitted to support the petition, but the Supreme Court denied review. Many were left wondering whether the Supreme Court’s remand of the issue in AEP truly reflected the Court’s interest in the issue—or whether it was simply a matter of appellate housekeeping. Continue reading
*Joining WLF’s Richard Samp as a guest commentator on this post is M.C. Sungaila, a partner with Snell & Wilmer LLP. Ms. Sungaila acted as counsel to the International Association of Defense Counsel and the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, both of which joined WLF in its amicus brief in Dart Cherokee.
The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, December 15 in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, overturning a Tenth Circuit removal jurisdiction decision, was hardly surprising. After all, the Tenth Circuit’s restrictive interpretation of the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)—that a defendant forfeits its removal rights unless the removal petition attaches documentary evidence supporting the jurisdictional allegations—conflicted with decisions from every other federal courts of appeal that has addressed the issue and elicited no supporting comments from the justices during October’s oral argument. Of far more lasting significance was Dart Cherokee’s rejection of a presumption against removal, in class-action cases and perhaps in other removal cases as well. That presumption had been adopted by 10 of the 11 regional courts of appeals and has been cited by countless district courts as the basis for remanding cases to state court. Organizations with which we are affiliated—the Washington Legal Foundation, the International Association of Defense Counsel, and the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel—are justly proud of having filed a brief that focused attention on the presumption-against-removal issue, an issue largely ignored by the parties.
Background. Dart Cherokee involved a class-action claim that an oil company breached a contract by underpaying royalties allegedly owed to lessors from production of oil wells located in Kansas. The oil company removed the case to federal district court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA permits removal of class actions even in the absence of complete diversity of citizenship, so long as the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, asserting that the removal petition inadequately demonstrated the amount in controversy.
The district court agreed and ordered a remand. It did so despite acknowledging that the oil company’s response to the motion adequately demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000 and that the plaintiffs conceded as much. The court concluded that under Tenth Circuit case law, evidence supporting federal removal jurisdiction must be included within the removal petition itself and not added later. The court explained that its decision to remand was “guided by the strong presumption against removal.” It noted that the Tenth Circuit “narrowly construes removal statutes, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.” Continue reading
Yesterday’s oral argument in Direct Marketing Assoc. v. Brohl indicated that the Supreme Court does not think very highly of the Tenth Circuit’s expansive interpretation of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA). The appeals court concluded that the TIA deprived federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a Colorado statute that imposes notice and reporting requirements on out-of-state retailers. Questions at yesterday’s argument suggested that most justices interpret the TIA’s limitations on jurisdiction as inapplicable when, as here, the plaintiff is not seeking to enjoin the collection of a state tax. However, Direct Marketing’s greater significance may lie in its illustration of lower federal courts’ continued resistance to hearing matters involving States and their laws. That resistance, largely the byproduct of overcrowded dockets and a sense that state issues are often of insufficient importance to warrant the attention of federal judges, is inconsistent with federal courts’ obligation to hear each case in which jurisdiction has been properly invoked.
The Petitioner in Direct Marketing is a trade group that represents online and mail-order retailers. They object to a statute adopted by the Colorado legislature to assist the State in collecting sales and use taxes from its own citizens who purchase products from out-of-state retailers. The Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill decision held that a State may not require out-of-state retailers to collect sales/use taxes on such purchases, even if the retailer ships its product into the State. Colorado’s response: it adopted a statute imposing onerous notice and reporting requirements on any out-of-state retailer that does not voluntarily collect sales/use taxes on such sales, including requiring submission to tax officials of an annual Customer Information Report that details all purchases made by Colorado residents. The Petitioner asserts that the statute violates numerous provisions of federal and state law. Continue reading
Tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. EDT, Washington Legal Foundation is hosting its final Web Seminar program of 2014. The program will address a critically important case currently awaiting cert consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the larger issues the case implicates.
No-Injury Class Actions: The Rise of Statutorily-Created Harm and the Need for High Court Intervention will be an hour-long live event featuring two appellate experts as our panelists: Andy Pincus of Mayer Brown LLP and Meir Feder of Jones Day. If you are interested in viewing the program live online, you can register for free HERE. If you cannot view it live but would like to watch the video from our online archive, please email WLF Legal Studies Division Chief Counsel Glenn Lammi at email@example.com.
The petition pending before the Supreme Court that offers the context for our discussion arises from a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling, Spokeo v. Robins. The case squarely presents the issue of whether private plaintiffs suing under a federal statute that defines certain action or inaction as an “injury” (injury-at-law) must also demonstrate that they have “case or controversy” standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution (injury-in-fact). The question has been decided differently in a number of federal circuits, and the Supreme Court has twice passed on opportunities to resolve the split. In 2012, after hearing oral arguments, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted another case from the Ninth Circuit, First American Financial v. Edwards. Earlier this year during its October 2013 term, the Court denied review to an Eighth Circuit decision, First National Bank of Wahoo v. Charvat.
The Court has requested that the Solicitor General of the U.S. provide the justices with the federal government’s view of the case and issues. The Solicitor General’s brief has not yet been filed.
The contrasting perspectives of the stakes in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, an administrative law case that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on Monday, December 1, could not be starker. Law professors are allegedly unanimous that the Court should reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit doctrine at issue, a doctrine that, in their view, severely hampers the ability of federal administrative agencies to respond to changing conditions. On the other hand, lawyers representing regulated entities have rallied to the defense of the D.C. Circuit’s doctrine; they view it as an essential check on arbitrary agency rulemaking. What explains these contrasting visions? The explanation could lie in the ongoing battle over how much deference courts should accord to agencies’ interpretations of their own rules. At time when courts are increasingly deferential to agencies, regulated entities will forcefully act to preserve other tools—such as the D.C. Circuit doctrine at issue in Perez—to keep federal agencies in check.
Perez concerns the scope of notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires federal agencies, before they adopt a “substantive” or “legislative” rule, to provide notice of the proposed rule and a meaningful opportunity for members of the public to comment on the proposal. Exempted from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement are “interpretive” rules. Agencies seek to avoid notice-and-comment requirements where possible; it is a burdensome process that can delay rulemaking for months and even years. Yet, despite nearly 70 years of APA litigation, the meaning of exempt “interpretive” rules has never been fully pinned down. Continue reading