Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Comer v. Kemp
No. 123l6 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 45360
Description
Second Circuit Reinstates Action Challenging Racial Discrimination in Public Housing in Buffalo Area
Abstract
The Second Circuit has reinstated plaintiff minority public housing
tenants’ action challenging the racially discriminatory
practices and policies of various defendants, including HUD, the
cities of Buffalo and Amherst, New York, local public housing
projects, and federal and state housing authorities. Plaintiffs had
filed three complaints alleging that defendants created and
perpetuated a segregated housing pattern in their area in that
local Section 8 residency preferences for persons living or working
around Buffalo promoted segregated housing. The district court
found that plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show
that they would receive housing any sooner if the preferences were
not used. The district court noted that, due to defendants’
new policies, the issue of preventing plaintiffs from moving to the
suburbs—arising from the limited use of Section 8
certificates inside Buffalo—was probably moot. Reversing, the
Second Circuit found that plaintiffs had alleged facts showing that
defendants’ Section 8 program was discriminatorily
administered in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 3601–31, and the constitution. Finding that this
discrimination was a bona fide injury capable of being remedied by
an injunction, the court held that plaintiffs had standing to sue.
Furthermore, the court ruled that defendant HUD’s notice to
PHAs directing them to advise Section 8 certificate holders that
they may move within the geographic area served by their PHA did
not moot plaintiffs’ claims since there was no guarantee that
this information had been communicated to economically
disadvantaged certificate holders.
