Hills v. Gautreaux

Facts

Six Negro tenants (Ps) in or applicants for public housing in Chicago, brought separate actions on behalf of themselves and all other Negro tenants and applicants similarly situated against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and HUD. The complaint filed alleged that CHA deliberately selected sites to 'avoid the placement of Negro families in white neighborhoods' in violation of federal statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment. In a companion suit against HUD Ps claimed that it had 'assisted in the carrying on and continues to assist in the carrying on of a racially discriminatory public housing system within the City of Chicago' by providing financial assistance and other support for CHA's discriminatory housing projects. The District Court stayed the action against HUD pending resolution of the CHA suit. Summary judgment was entered against CHA on the ground that it had violated the respondents' constitutional rights by selecting public housing sites and assigning tenants on the basis of race. In order to prohibit future violations and to remedy the effects of past unconstitutional practices, the court directed CHA to build its next 700 family units in predominantly white areas of Chicago and thereafter to locate at least 75% of its new family public housing in predominantly white areas inside Chicago or Cook County. The District Court then turned to the action against HUD. In September 1970, it granted HUD's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment for the respondents, holding that HUD had violated both the Fifth Amendment and 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, by knowingly sanctioning and assisting CHA's racially discriminatory public housing program. On remand, the trial court addressed the difficult problem of providing an effective remedy for the racially segregated public housing system that had been created by the unconstitutional conduct of CHA and HUD. The court denied the Ps' motion to consider metropolitan area relief and adopted the petitioner's proposed order requiring HUD to use its best efforts to assist CHA in increasing the supply of dwelling units and enjoining HUD from funding family public housing programs in Chicago that were inconsistent with the previous judgment entered against CHA; 'the wrongs were committed within the limits of Chicago and solely against residents of the City,' and there were no allegations that 'CHA and HUD discriminated or fostered racial discrimination in the suburbs.' The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with one judge dissenting, reversed and remanded the case for 'the adoption of a comprehensive metropolitan area plan that will not only disestablish the segregated public housing system in the City of Chicago . . . but will increase the supply of dwelling units as rapidly as possible.' 503 F.2d 930, 939. The appellate court's determination that a remedy extending beyond the city limits was both 'necessary and equitable' rested in part on the agreement of the parties and the expert witnesses that 'the metropolitan area is a single relevant locality for low rent housing purposes and that a city-only remedy will not work.' HUD subsequently sought review in this Court of the permissibility in light of Milliken of 'inter-district relief for discrimination in public housing in the absence of a finding of an inter-district violation.'

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.