Waples Mobile Home Park Limited Partnership v. Reyes

The case arose when four noncitizen families sued Waples Mobile Home Park under the FHA for enforcing the Park’s policy that all adults living in the Park must present proof of legal status. The noncitizen families claimed that the policy violated the FHA because it disproportionately harmed Latinos. The district court held that the plaintiffs could not proceed on a disparate-impact theory, but they could proceed on a disparate-treatment theory. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that the noncitizen families had made the required causality showing because their demographic statistics established that the Park’s policy was likely to cause Latino tenants to be disproportionately evicted compared to non-Latino tenants at the Park. On remand, the district court again ruled in favor of the Park, finding that their interest in avoiding prosecution under the federal anti-harboring statute sufficiently supported its policy. The Fourth Circuit again reversed. It disagreed that the Park’s interest in avoiding criminal liability was sufficient, particularly because the Department of Justice had taken the position that it would not prosecute residential landlords that failed to check the immigration status of their tenants. The Park is seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The amicus brief filed by HLLI, Pacific Legal Foundation, and Manhattan Institute supports the Park, arguing that limits on disparate impact liability are necessary to prevent constitutional conflicts. The brief points out that many run-of-the-mill housing practices will have a disparate impact on some group simply by virtue of private choices by its members, rather than the discriminatory intent of the landlord. For example, a “no smoking” policy will have a disparate impact on Hispanic Americans relative to Asian Americans because of the population-level difference in tobacco use. And a “no pets” policy will have a disparate impact on whites, who are more likely to own a pet. A legal standard that imposes liability for such policies would encourage overt–and unlawful–race-based decision making in order to ensure a proportionate demographic outcome.

The Supreme Court has recognized a “robust causality requirement” that “protects defendants from being held liable for racial disparities they did not create.” The lower courts have not been uniform in recognizing the important safeguards, however, necessitating review by the Supreme Court.