Walker v. City of Mesquite

No. 04-10946 (5th Cir. March 4, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 42158

Description

Public Housing Site Selection Does Not Violate Dallas Community Residents’ Equal Protection Rights, Fifth Circuit Holds

Abstract

The Fifth Circuit held that appellee Dallas Housing Authority’s decision to build public housing in appellant residents’ neighborhood did not violate residents’ Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. In response to a lawsuit filed in 1985 by African American public housing residents and applicants, housing authority agreed to integrate Dallas public housing. In 1994, after repeated breaches of the consent decree, housing authority and plaintiffs in that case negotiated a remedial order, which required housing authority to construct public housing in “predominately white areas” to remedy past segregation. In compliance with the remedial order, housing authority purchased two such sites. In 1996 homeowners in these areas sued to enjoin construction; they argued that the remedial order violated their equal protection rights. The district court denied homeowners’ request for an injunction. Reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit held that, because a race-conscious remedy was not required to ameliorate segregative policies at housing authority, the district court’s order was not narrowly tailored. In 2001 the district court modified the vacated remedial order to remove all references to the race of residents in areas where public housing could be constructed. The order’s only racial classifications were those prohibiting housing authority from discriminating against African Americans in its housing policies. Appellants again objected on equal protection grounds. The district court dismissed appellants’ suit. On residents’ appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that, taken as a whole, the district court’s findings of fact were plausible. The Fifth Circuit found no constitutional violation and rejected appellants’ argument that housing authority’s retention of and subsequent decision to build on the site in question was a racially neutral policy animated by a discriminatory purpose. The Fifth Circuit would not characterize housing authority’s plan to build on the site as a continuation of an unconstitutional policy or practice such as that described in United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992).

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiff-appellees represented by Mike Daniel, 3301 Elm, Dallas, TX 75226 (telephone number: 214.939.9230)
Docket Date
2005-03-04 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: