Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc.

Case Updates

The parties settled the case.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber urged the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Third Circuit, arguing that neither the statute nor the Supreme Court's jurisprudence provide a private right of action for disparate impact claims. In this case, the Respondents brought this lawsuit claiming that a small New Jersey municipality’s plan to redevelop a blighted residential area violated a provision of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Respondents alleged that the redevelopment plan, though not motivated by intentional discrimination, would have a disparate impact on some households. The Chamber argued in its amicus brief that the statutory text, context, and history of the FHA establish that the FHA permits claims only for disparate treatment, not disparate impact. Further, the text of the FHA does not show that Congress intended to authorize disparate-impact claims, nor does the legislative history show that Congress intended to authorize a disparate-impact claim.