[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] in two cases on Wednesday. In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project [transcript, PDF], the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) [text] require plaintiffs to show that a policy is intentionally discriminatory, or merely that the policy disproportionately affects minority communities. The Inclusive Communities Project (ICP) [advocacy website] brought suit against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) [official website] in 2008, alleging that TDHCA was disproportionately approving tax credits for the construction and management of low-income housing in minority-concentrated areas and disproportionately disapproving tax credits in predominately Caucasian neighborhoods, creating a concentration of units in minority areas and a lack of units in other areas, perpetuating segregated housing patterns. The district court found in favor of ICP on its discriminatory impact claim under the FHA based on a two-part test requiring defendants to justify their actions with a compelling governmental interest and prove that there were no less discriminatory alternatives. Subsequent to the district court’s ruling, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) [official website] issued regulations establishing a burden-shifting test [text], requiring plaintiffs to first show that a challenged practice causes a discriminatory effect. If the plaintiff makes that prima facie case, the defendant must prove that the practice is necessary to achieve legitimate governmental interests. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff, who must show that the defendant’s interests could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit adopted HUD’s burden-shifting test [opinion, PDF], and remanded to the district court for a ruling using the HUD test. The Supreme Court is to rule on whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable at all under the FHA.

In Rodriguez v. United States [transcript, PDF], the Supreme Court heard oral arguments as to whether a police officer may extend an already-completed traffic stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other justification. In 2012 an officer conducted a traffic stop of Dennys Rodriguez. After checking Rodriguez’s license and registration, he issued a written warning and then asked for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle. When Rodriguez refused to give permission, the officer ordered Rodriguez out of the vehicle until another officer arrived and then conducted a canine sniff. The canine signaled, and the officers recovered a bag of methamphetamine. Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine as evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied this motion [order, PDF].