Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

MAGNER v. GALLAGHER

Docket No.: 10-1032
Certiorari Granted: 11/07/11
Argued: February 29, 2012
Decided: 01/20/12

Topic:

Court Rule 46

PartyNames: Steve Magner, et al. v. Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.
Petitioner: Steve Magner, et al.
Respondent: Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Citation: 619 F.3d 823

Steve Magner, et al.
v.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.
Background:

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful "[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. ยง 3604(a). Respondents are owners of rental properties who argue that Petitioners violated the Fair Housing Act by "aggressively" enforcing the City of Saint Paul's housing code. According to Respondents, because a disproportionate number of renters are African--American, and Respondents rent to many African--Americans, requiring them to meet the housing code will increase their costs and decrease the number of units they make available to rent to African-American tenants. Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment for Petitioners, the Eighth Circuit held that Respondents should be allowed to proceed to trial because they presented sufficient evidence of a "disparate impact" on African-Americans.

Question Presented:

1. Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act? 2. If such claims are cognizable, should they be analyzed under the burden shifting approach used by three circuits, under the balancing test used by four circuits, under a hybrid approach used by two circuits, or by some other test?

MAGNER v. GALLAGHER
ORAL ARGUMENT

02/29/12

Holding: DISMISSED Rule 46
Decision: Decision: 0 votes for N/A, 0 vote(s) against

MAGNER v. GALLAGHER
Case Documents

1BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
2BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AND THE CATO INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
3BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION, FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE, AND HOUSING POLICY COUNCIL SUGGESTING REVERSAL
4BRIEF FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, AND LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
5BRIEF FOR THE AMICUS CURIAE TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
6BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS