Oral Arguments Fair Housing Case
-
Upload
rupali-samuel -
Category
Documents
-
view
6 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Oral Arguments Fair Housing Case
-
1
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
2 x
3 TEXASDEPARTMENTOF :
4 HOUSINGANDCOMMUNITY :
5 AFFAIRS,ETAL., :
6 Petitioners : No.131371
7 v. :
8 THEINCLUSIVECOMMUNITIES :
9 PROJECT,INC. :
10 x
11 Washington,D.C.
12 Wednesday,January21,2015
13
14 Theaboveentitledmattercameonfororal
15 argumentbeforetheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
16 at10:21a.m.
17 APPEARANCES:
18 SCOTTA.KELLER,ESQ.,SolicitorGeneralofTexas,
19 Austin,Tex.;onbehalfofPetitioners.
20 MICHAELM.DANIEL,ESQ.,Dallas,Tex.;onbehalfof
21 Respondent.
22 GEN.DONALDB.VERRILLI,JR.,SolicitorGeneral,
23 DepartmentofJustice,Washington,D.C.;forUnited
24 States,asamicuscuriae,onbehalfofRespondent.
25
AldersonReportingCompany
-
2
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 CONTENTS
2 ORALARGUMENTOF PAGE
3 SCOTTA.KELLER,ESQ.
4 3OnbehalfofthePetitioners
5 ORALARGUMENTOF
6 MICHAELM.DANIEL,ESQ.
7 OnbehalfoftheRespondent 25
8 ORALARGUMENTOF
9 GEN.DONALDB.VERRILLI,JR.,ESQ.
10 OnbehalfofUnitedStates,asamicuscuriae,
11 supportingRespondent 37
12 REBUTTALARGUMENTOF
13 SCOTTA.KELLER,ESQ.,
14 OnbehalfofthePetitioners 53
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AldersonReportingCompany
-
3
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (10:21a.m.)
3 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: We'llhearargument
4 firstthismorninginCase131371,theTexasDepartment
5 ofHousingandCommunityAffairsv.TheInclusive
6 CommunitiesProject.
7 Mr.Keller.
8 ORALARGUMENTOFSCOTTA.KELLER
9 ONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONERS
10 MR.KELLER: Thankyou,Mr.ChiefJustice,
11 andmayitpleasetheCourt:
12 TheFairHousingActdoesnotrecognize
13 disparateimpactclaims,first,becauseitsplaintext
14 doesn'tuseeffectsorresultsbasedlanguage,andwhen
15 astatuteprohibitsactionstakenbecauseofraceandit
16 lackseffectsbasedlanguage,thestatuteislimitedto
17 intentionaldiscrimination. And,second,thecanonof
18 constitutionalavoidancecompelsthisinterpretation.
19 Mostimportantly,theActdoesn'tusethephrase
20 "adverselyaffect." Smithv.CityofJackson,
21 recognizedthatthiseffectsbasedphrase
22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: AtthetimeofSmithand
23 Griggs,neithertheTitleVIInortheADEAusedthe
24 words"disparateimpact,"andyetwerecognizethey
25 applydisparateimpact.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
4
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 MR.KELLER: Atthetime,disparatethe
2 words"disparateimpact"werenotused;however,the
3 words"adverselyaffect"wereused. AndWatson
4 subsequentlyinterpretedGriggsasfindingthetextual
5 hookfordisparateimpactliabilitywasbasedonthe
6 phrase"adverselyaffect."
7 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Youhaveaproblem,
8 becauseitsays"torefusetosellorrent,"etcetera,
9 "orotherwisemakeunavailable,"andtheagencycharged
10 withinterpretingthatlanguagehasdeterminedthatit
11 needsdisparateimpact.
12 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,thethe
13 phrase"makeunavailable"isanactprohibitedbythe
14 FairHousingAct. Itisanact
15 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Consequence. Ithappens
16 tobebecausethat'swhatyoudowithhousing,butit's
17 aconsequence.
18 MR.KELLER: Theactofmakingunavailablea
19 dwellingtoapersonistheactprohibitedbytheFair
20 HousingAct. Thisisn'tlikeSection4(a)(2)ofthe
21 ADEA,whereSmithsaiddisparateimpactlied. Thisis
22 likeSection4(a)(1)oftheADEA,becauseofthe
23 804(a)prohibitstherefusaltosellorrent,the
24 refusaltonegotiate,otherwisemakingunavailable,or
25 denying. Allofthoseareactiveverbs,andthey'reall
AldersonReportingCompany
-
5
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 actsprohibited. Theworkthatisbeingdoneby
2 "otherwisemakeunavailable"istocoveradditional
3 acts,suchaszoningdecisionsorlanduserestrictions
4 thatarenotoutrightrefusalsoroutrightdenials. And
5 that'swhythelanguageoftheFairHousingActfocuses
6 onactions,noton
7 JUSTICESCALIA: Ofcourse,youcouldsay
8 thesamethingabout"adverselyaffect." Imean,that
9 alsoisanactiveverb,right? Anditalsoyouhad
10 toadverselyaffectbydiscriminating.
11 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Onthebasisof
12 JUSTICESCALIA: So,youknow,Ithe
13 pointsyoumakearearetrueenough,buttheywere
14 alsotruewithwithrespecttoTitleVII,weren't
15 they?
16 MR.KELLER: JusticeScalia,Idon'tbelieve
17 so. BecauseSection4(a)(2)andSection703(a)(2)ban
18 theactoflimiting,segregating,andclassifying. And
19 thentheycheckforacertainresult,somethingwhich
20 woulddeprive,tendtodeprive,oradverselyaffect.
21 Anditwasthatresultsoreffectscheckinglanguage
22 thatgaverisetodisparateimpactliability.
23 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Butafterthatlanguage
24 isthephrase"onthebasisof,"race,sex,whatever.
25 Soit'sadverselyaffectonthebasisofthewhatever
AldersonReportingCompany
-
6
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 thecategory.
2 MR.KELLER: Well,andthatwasthe
3 interpretationthattheSmithpluralityandconcurrence
4 cametoonSection4(a)(2). ButinSection4(a)(1),the
5 phrase"becauseofrace"appears,andyouhaveactive
6 verbsthere. Youhave"refuse"and"otherwise
7 discriminate,"andtheCourtwasunanimousinfinding
8 thatSection4(a)(1)onlyrequiredintentional
9 discrimination,itdidnot
10 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Dodowetakeinto
11 accountatallthatinbothTitleVIIandtheFair
12 HousingAct,therewasagrandgoalthatCongresshadin
13 mind? Itmeanttoundogenerationsofrank
14 discrimination. AndwhatwasthephrasethatthisCourt
15 usedinTrafficantetodescribetheFairHousingAct?
16 Thatitsobjectivewastoreplaceghettosbyintegrating
17 "integratedlivingpatterns,"justasTitleVIIwas
18 meanttoundoalegacyofrankemployment
19 discrimination. Sodoesn'tthatpurposegiveaa
20 cluetowhatCongresswasafter?
21 MR.KELLER: Well,JusticeGinsburg,the
22 Courtneedstofocusontheplaintext. Andunlike
23 TitleVII,whichwaspassedin1964,andunlikethe
24 ADEA,whichwaspassedin1967,bothofwhichincluded
25 thephrase"adverselyaffect,"in1968whenCongress
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
7
1 passedtheFairHousingActitdidn'tusethatlanguage.
2 Instead,itprohibitedmakingunavailableadwellingto
3 anypersonbecauseofrace. Inincommonlanguageif
4 youweretosay,"Adammadeunavailableadwellingto
5 Bobbecauseofrace,"youask,well,whydidAdamact?
6 Heactedbecauseofrace,andracewasareasonforthe
7 action.
8 JUSTICEKAGAN: ButifIcouldunderstand
9 yourpoint,GeneralKeller,youagreewithJustice
10 Scaliathat"makeunavailable,"it'slike"adversely
11 affects,"they'rethey'rebothverbs. "Make
12 unavailable"isjustonewaytoadverselyaffect. And
13 whatyou'repinningyourargumentonistheseextra
14 addedwordsintheTitleVIIstatute,right? Sothat
15 it'sintheintheTitleVIIstatute,it's
16 can'tevenfindthem. YouknowwhatImean.
17 MR.KELLER: Ido,JusticeKagan.
18 JUSTICEKAGAN: Okay. SobutIdon't
19 Idon'tthinkthatthatcouldpossiblyberight,because
20 thenyouwouldbesayingthatitwouldbeadifferent
21 statuteif,insteadofjustsayinghereanemployer
22 can'tmakeunavailable,butinsteaditsaidanemployer
23 can'tactinawaythatmakesunavailable. Thatwould
24 makeitcompletelyparalleltotheTitleVIIandthe
25 ADEAstatutes.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
8
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 Andandthosetwothingsjustcan'tmean
2 thesamething. Imean,allit'sdoingistotakeouta
3 fewwords,butit'ssayingtheexactsamething,which
4 iseitherway,anemployercan'tmakeunavailable.
5 MR.KELLER: JusticeKagan,Idon'tthink
6 it'ssayingthesamething. Andunderthereasoningof
7 Smith,itcan'tbesayingthesamething,because
8 Section4(a)(1),theCourtunanimouslyrecognized,
9 didn'tgiverisetodisparateimpactliability;andit
10 didn'thavethephrasethatappearedin4(a)(2)which
11 wascheckingtosee"inanywaywhichwoulddepriveor
12 tendtodepriveoradverselyaffect." Withoutthat
13 resultsbasedlanguage,youcan'thavedisparateimpact
14 liability. That'swhatRiccisaidandSandoval.
15 JUSTICEKAGAN: No,butthebutthething
16 that'sdifferentinthisstatuteisthe"make
17 unavailable,"whichfocusesonaneffectinthesameway
18 thatthe"adverselyaffect"languagedoes. Anditjust
19 doesitalittlebitmoreeconomically,butthe
20 effectsbasednatureoftheprovisionisstillthesame.
21 MR.KELLER: Itdoesn'tfocusonthe
22 effects. WhatSmithsaidwas4(a)(2)prohibitedtheact
23 oflimiting,segregating,andclassifying. ButSmith
24 saidthat'snotsimplywhatitwasprohibiting. Itwas
25 checkingtoseeiftherewasalsoadeprivationor
AldersonReportingCompany
-
9
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 somethingthattendedtodepriveorsomethingthat
2 adverselyaffected,andthatwastheeffectsbased
3 language. Itwasn'tmerelydroppinginaphrasesuchas
4 "makeunavailable."
5 Allactionshaveconsequences,buthere
6 Congresschoseactiveverbs. AsMeyerv. Holley
7 recognized,theFairHousingActitselffocuseson
8 prohibitedacts.
9 JUSTICESCALIA: Make"makeunavailable"
10 isnotthesamelanguageas"adverselyaffect."
11 That'sthat'sallthatI'mwillingtoconcede.
12 AndIthinkifyouthoughtthatSmithwas
13 wrong,whichmanypeopledo,Isupposeyoucouldargue
14 wewillnotexpandSmith. AndSmithhungonparticular
15 words,"adverselyaffect." Thosewordsdon'texist
16 here,and,therefore,sincewethinkSmithwaswrong
17 anyway,we'renotgoingtoextendit. That'sthat's
18 areasonableargument,butthat'snottheargument
19 you'remaking.
20 Whatwhathangsmeupisnotsomuchthat
21 asitisthefactthatCongressseeminglyacknowledged
22 theeffectstestinlaterlegislationwhenitsaidthat
23 certaineffectswillnotqualify. YouknowwhatI'm
24 referringto?
25 MR.KELLER: Yes,JusticeScalia.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
10
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 JUSTICESCALIA: Well,whydoesn'tthat
2 whydoesn'tthatkillyourcase? Imean,whenwelook
3 ataaprovisionoflaw,welookattheentire
4 provisionoflaw,includinglateramendments. Wetryto
5 makesenseofthelawasawhole.
6 Now,youseethisstatutewhichwhichhas
7 otherwisewhatismakeunavailable,anditalsohas,
8 however,itwillnotbeaviolationiftheseeffects
9 areareyoureadthosetogetherandyousay,wow,
10 thisthislawmustmeanmereeffectsqualify.
11 MR.KELLER: JusticeScalia,the1988
12 amendments,inenactingthreeexceptionsfromliability,
13 thoseprovisionsmerelyrestrictedliability,andthe
14 Courtrejectedavirtuallyidenticalargumenttowhat
15 theRespondentandtheSolicitorGeneralaremakingin
16 O'Gilviev.UnitedStates. It'sacasethatappearsat
17 519U.S.79.
18 JUSTICESCALIA: Isthisinyourbrief?
19 MR.KELLER: Thecasewasnotcitedinour
20 brief.
21 JUSTICESCALIA: Oh,I'msorry.
22 MR.KELLER: AtPage89ofthatdecision
23 JUSTICESCALIA: Yeah.
24 MR.KELLER: theCourtnotedthat
25 Congressmightsimplyhavewantedtoclarifythematter
AldersonReportingCompany
-
11
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 inrespecttothenarrowexemption,butitwantedto
2 leavethelawwhereitfounditinrespecttothe
3 broaderissue.
4 JUSTICEKAGAN: Butthelawwhereitfound
5 itherewasveryclear,becausetencircuitshadgone
6 theotherwayandhadsaidthatdisparateimpactwasa
7 validactionundertheFHA. Soleavingthelawwhere
8 youfoundit,andwepresumethatCongressknowsthe
9 law,especiallywhenthelawisthatclearandthat
10 uniform,means,yes,therewillbedisparateimpact
11 actionsexceptinthesethreecircumstanceswhichwe're
12 goingtolayoutforyouveryclearlyandvery
13 precisely.
14 MR.KELLER: JusticeKagan,in1988the
15 stateofthelawwasinflux. TheSolicitorGeneral
16 filedabriefinthisCourtsayingthattheFairHousing
17 Actonlyprohibitedactsofintentionaldiscrimination.
18 Andtwomonthsbeforetheamendments,thisCourtdecided
19 inWatsonandemphasizedthatthephrase"adversely
20 affect"wasthelanguagethatgaveriseto
21 disparateimpactliability. AndifCongresswouldhave
22 takeifCongresswasassumedtohaveknownthatthis
23 Court'sprecedentswereinplace,then
24 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Howdoyouput
25 "adverselyaffect"? Didtheyhavetowriteit"or
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
12
1 otherwiseadverselyaffectsomeonebymakingthehousing
2 unavailable"?
3 MR.KELLER: Otherwise
4 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Imean,it'salittle
5 crazy,don'tyouthink,becauseotherwiseadversely
6 affectingsomeonebymakingitunavailable. Ithink
7 it'sotherwisemakeunavailable
8 MR.KELLER: Well,otherwiseitcould
9 have
10 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: istheshortformof
11 that.
12 MR.KELLER: Orotherwiselimithousing
13 opportunitiesinawaythatwouldadverselyaffect.
14 Congresscouldhaveusedthesamelanguagethatappeared
15 inTitleVII.
16 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Butinsteadwhatitdid,
17 ittookabodyoflaw,someofwhichhadheldsome
18 practicesasdisparatelyimproperlydisparately
19 impacting,likedrugaddictionandothersandtwo
20 others,andsaid,no,thosetwowon'tcount,thosethree
21 won'tcount. Yourreadingofthosethreeexemptionsis
22 theywereunnecessary.
23 MR.KELLER: Well,theywereabsolutely
24 doingworkin1988,andCongresscouldtakeaccountof
25 thefacttheCourt
AldersonReportingCompany
-
13
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,whatdoyoumake
2 ofin1988wheresomeonewantedtodoawaywith
3 disparateimpactandCongressdidn'ttakeupthat
4 invitation?
5 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,Ibelieve
6 you'rereferringtoRepresentativeSwindall'samendment.
7 AndthemerefactthatCongressdidn'tenacta
8 provision,thisCourthasnotlookedtoinreviewinga
9 statute.
10 JUSTICESCALIA: Butwhatyou're
11 you'retellingusthattheseamendmentswhichsaidthat
12 certaintypesofeffectswillnotqualify,thatthe
13 purposeofthatamendmentwastopreventerroneouscourt
14 ofappeals'decisionsfromaffectingthoseparticular
15 areas?
16 MR.KELLER: JusticeScalia,that'spartof
17 theworkthatthey'redoing.
18 JUSTICESCALIA: That'saverystrangething
19 forCongresstodo,tobelievethatthosecourtof
20 opinionscourtofappeals'opinionsarewrongandyet
21 totoenacttheseexemptions. Soeventhoughthose
22 opinionsarewrong,theywillnotapplytothesethings.
23 Ithat'sverystrange.
24 MR.KELLER: Well,in1988,whenCongress
25 waslegislating,itagreedononething,andthatwasin
AldersonReportingCompany
-
14
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 thesethreenarrowcircumstances,liabilitywouldbe
2 restrictedundertheFairHousingAct. Itwouldbe
3 extremelyoddtoreadintoarestrictionofliabilitya
4 recognitionofamassiveexpansionofFairHousingAct
5 liability,andCongressdoesnothideelephantsinmouse
6 holes.
7 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Exactly. Andten
8 circuitshadalreadysaidtherewasdisparateimpact.
9 Iftheydidn'tlikethedisparateimpactanalysis,they
10 wouldhavetakenupthecongressman'sproposal. But
11 theydidn't.
12 MR.KELLER: InthebriefthattheSolicitor
13 Generalfiledin1988,itmadethepoint,whichis
14 absolutelythesametoday,whichisCongressknowshow
15 toenactaneffecttest.
16 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Itchangedwhenno,
17 no,no. When1988happened,theSolicitorGeneral
18 changeditsposition,andithasbeenconsistentsince
19 then,thatwhenCongressadoptedthethreeexemptions,
20 ititrecognizeddisparateimpactasapplyingtothe
21 FairHousingAct. Thatintentionalbriefwasnotin
22 1988andnotinitwasafterthatwasbefore1988,
23 the1988amendments.
24 MR.KELLER: Ititwasbeforethe1988
25 amendments,that'sright. ButthisCourtwas
AldersonReportingCompany
-
15
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 consideringtheissueinTownofHuntingtonandafter
2 theamendment. SowhileCongresswaspassingthe1988
3 amendments,thisCourthasacasewheretheissuewas
4 raisedanditwasactivelyconsideringit.
5 AndCongress
6 JUSTICEALITO: Well,General,Ithought
7 yourargumentonthe1988amendmentswasasfollows:
8 EitherthetheFairHousingActcontemplated
9 disparateimpactanalysiswhenitwasadoptedin,when
10 wasit,1968oritdidn't. Andthe1988amendments,
11 whichmadeitclearthattherecouldnotbe
12 disparateimpactanalysiswithrespecttocertain
13 matterssurelydidn'texpandthescopeofthe19of
14 whatwasinitiallyenacted. Sotheissueiswhatdid
15 Congressintend,whatwhatisthemeaningoftheAct
16 asoriginallyenacted. Ithoughtthatwasyour
17 argument.
18 MR.KELLER: Precisely,JusticeAlito. The
19 1968Act
20 JUSTICEGINSBURG: ButIfwe'regoingtobe
21 realisticaboutthis,in1964,whentheCivilRightsAct
22 passed,andin1968,whentheFairHousingActpassed,
23 nobodyknewanythingaboutdisparateimpact. That
24 didn'tcomeuptilltheGriggsdecision,anditwasthis
25 CourtthatgavethatinterpretationtoTitleVIIin
AldersonReportingCompany
-
16
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 lightofthepurposeofthestatute.
2 Sototrytolookbackandsay,oh,didthey
3 meandisparateimpactin'64,whenGriggswasn'tonthe
4 bookstill'71,it'salittleartificial,don'tyou
5 think?
6 MR.KELLER: TheCourthastoconstruethe
7 plaintextofthestatutethatCongressenacted,andthe
8 textin1964didnotuseeffects
9 JUSTICESCALIA: Ithasto
10 MR.KELLER: Sorry.
11 JUSTICESCALIA: Ithastoconstruethe
12 plaintextofthelaw,andthelawconsistsnotjustof
13 whatCongressdidin1968,butalsowhatitdidin'88.
14 Andyoulookatthewholelawandyousay,whatmakes
15 sense? Andifyoureadthosethosetwoprovisions
16 together,itseemstobeanacknowledgmentthatthereis
17 suchathingasdisparateimpact. However,itwillnot
18 applyintheseareasthatthe1988amendmentsays. We
19 don'tjustlookateachlittlepiecewhenitwas
20 seriallyenactedandsaywhatdidCongressthinkin
21 in'68? Whatdiditthinkin'72? Welookatthelaw.
22 Andthelawincludesthe'68actandthe'88amendments.
23 AndIIfindithardtoreadthosetwotogetherin
24 anyotherwaythanthereissuchathingasdisparate
25 impact.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
17
1 MR.KELLER: The1988amendmentsdon'trefer
2 todisparateimpact. ThisisnotliketheTitleVII
3 1991amendmentthatexplicitlyusedthewords"disparate
4 impact."
5 JUSTICEKAGAN: Ofcoursenot,but
6 JUSTICESCALIA: Buttheymakenosense
7 unlessthereissuchathingasdisparateimpact.
8 It'stheyareprohibitingsomethingthatdoesn't
9 exist,right? Imean,you'resayingthattheyprohibit
10 somethingthatdoesn'texist.
11 MR.KELLER: Theycoulddomorework. They
12 doworkindisparatetreatmentcases. Takethe
13 occupancyexemption. TheFairHousingActalso
14 prohibitsthefailuretomakeaccommodationsbasedon
15 disability. Theoccupancyexemptionisgoingtodowork
16 inthatcase. ThisiswhyinCityofEdmonds,the
17 Courtnotedthatthesewereexemptionswerecomplete
18 exemptionsfromFHAscrutiny. Congressdidn'tsaythat
19 itwaslimitingthesetodisparateimpact. Itsaidwe
20 don'twanttheseclaimstogoforward.
21 JUSTICEBREYER: Soyouhaveanargument,
22 andsodoestheothersidehaveanargument. ButI
23 don'twantyounottohavethechancetoanswerwhatto
24 meisaprettyimportantquestion. Saytherearegood
25 argumentsonbothsides. Thelawhasbeenagainstyou.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
18
1 There'sbeendisparateimpactfor40years. Now,letme
2 befair. Maybeit'sonly35. Andit'suniversally
3 againstyou. AndasfarasIcantell,theworldhasn't
4 cometoanend.
5 Imean,theformofthequestionI'mputting
6 iswell,maybeMarburyv.Madisonwaswrong. Idon't
7 thinkitwas. Butnonetheless,nonetheless,thishas
8 beenthelawoftheUnitedStatesuniformlythroughout
9 theUnitedStatesfor35years,itisimportant,andall
10 thehorriblesthatarepainteddon'tseemtohave
11 happenedoratleastwehavesurvivedthem.
12 SowhyshouldthisCourtsuddenlycomein
13 andreverseanimportantlawwhichseemstohaveworked
14 outinawaythatishelpfultomanypeople,hasnot
15 produceddisaster,onthebasisofgoingbackandmaking
16 afinelyspunargumentonthebasisofatextthatwas
17 passedmanyyearsagoandisambiguousatbest?
18 MR.KELLER: Ifyouweretobelievethe
19 statute'sambiguous
20 JUSTICEBREYER: Oh,well,Idon'tthink.
21 Mygoodness,ifitisn'tambiguous,itwouldbe
22 surprisingbecausetencircuitcourtsofappealshave
23 allinterpreteditthewayoppositeyouandItakeit
24 youdon'tmeanit'sunambiguousontheirside.
25 (Laughter.)
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
19
1 MR.KELLER: In1988,theamendmentsdidn't
2 touchthetextofthe1968FairHousingAct
3 JUSTICEBREYER: No,no. Idon'twantyou
4 toifyou'lldomethefavorofansweringmy
5 question.
6 MR.KELLER: Sure.
7 JUSTICEBREYER: Whichisthequestionthat
8 it'sbeenthelawfor40yearsofjustalittlebit
9 less,disasterhasnotoccurred,andwhywhensomething
10 issowellestablishedthroughouttheUnitedStates
11 shouldthisCourtcomeinandchangeit.
12 MR.KELLER: Thereisaseriousequal
13 protectionquestionlurkinghere. Andastowhyyou
14 wouldchangeit,disparateimpactliabilityandwhereit
15 leadsisbeingappliedinacaselikethisinMagnerv.
16 Gallagher. Texasherewastryingtogiveadditional
17 JUSTICEBREYER: Youdon'tlikethewayit
18 wasapplied,andIcanunderstandthat. Butthereare
19 manyremediesthatyouhave. OneisyougotoHUDand
20 yousay,lookatwhatishappening;thisishappeningto
21 havetheoppositeeffectthatyouwant. That'soneof
22 yourarguments. Well,trytoconvincethem.
23 Andifnotthere,yougotoacourtandsay:
24 Court,thisisadisparateimpactcase,andwehavea
25 justificationandthejustificationisstrongenough
AldersonReportingCompany
-
20
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 thatitsurvivestheempiricaleffect,andyouseeif
2 youcangetthemtoagree. Youmaywin;youmaylose.
3 Butwhatnottodoistooverturnthewhole
4 lawthathasbeenineffect,I'llrepeatforthe
5 nineteenththtime,for40yearswithbasicallyhelpful
6 effect. Now,that'saquestion. Itdidn'tsoundlike
7 one,butitwasone.
8 (Laughter.)
9 JUSTICEBREYER: SoI'dliketohearwhat
10 yousay.
11 MR.KELLER: Sure. Theequalprotection
12 concernsherearestark. First,thegovernmenthasnot
13 explainedifit'sgoingtoenforcetheHUDregulationto
14 protectonlyminorities. Ifitdoes,that'slikely
15 unconstitutionalunderAdderandandifitdoesn't,
16 that'sgoingtointerferewithFederalandState
17 programsthathelplowerincomeneighborhoods.
18 JUSTICESCALIA: MaybeI'mmissingsomething
19 here.
20 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: How
21 JUSTICESCALIA: Didn'tthisCourtdecide
22 Marburyv.Madison?
23 MR.KELLER: Absolutely,JusticeScalia.
24 JUSTICEBREYER: Myquestionwasnotreally
25 aboutMarbury.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
21
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 JUSTICESCALIA: Imean,isn'tthatabig
2 difference,Imean,betweenthesituationhere? This
3 Courthasneverdecidedthisissue. It'sjustthelower
4 courtshavehavedecideditinauniformfashion.
5 Haveweeverbeforereverseduniformholdingsofof
6 courtsofappeals,eventhosethathavelasted30years?
7 Theanswerisyes.
8 MR.KELLER: Youhaverejectedthe
9 overwhelmingconsensusofthecourtsofappeals.
10 JUSTICEBREYER: That'swhyIaskedthe
11 question. Isaidwhy. Why? I'mnotsayingyou
12 couldn'tdoit. I'msimplysayingwhy. AndIdon't
13 wanttorepeatmyquestionforthefourthtime,andyou
14 begantogiveananswerandtheansweryoubegantogive
15 wasbasedonaconstitutionalproblemthathasarisen.
16 AndI'vetakenthatinandreadit,anddoyouhave
17 otheranswersornot? Iwantyoufullytoanswerthe
18 question.
19 MR.KELLER: Sure. Theplaintextofthe
20 statuteisclear. Constitutionalavoidancecompelsthat
21 interpretation,andthepurposesoftheFairHousingAct
22 wouldbeunderminedbyextendingdisparateimpact
23 liabilitytothisdegree.
24 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,you'renowtalking
25 aboutapplication. Andlet'sgobackto,youmadea
AldersonReportingCompany
-
22
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 statementearlierthatthisisgoingtoinhibit
2 developmentofblightedareas. Thathastodowiththe
3 applicationinthiscase. IfI'mrightaboutthetheory
4 ofdisparateimpact,andIcantellyouI'vestudiedit
5 verycarefully,itsintentistoensurethatanyonewho
6 isrentingorsellingpropertyormakingitunavailable
7 isdoingsonotonthebasisofartificial,arbitraryor
8 unnecessaryhurdles,policiesorpractices,andit'sthe
9 Petitionerwhohastoidentifywhichtheyare,andto
10 explainwhyalternativeswouldn'twork.
11 Ifsomeone'sdevelopingablightedareaor
12 anareasubjecttocrimeorsomethingelse,that's
13 somethingtheycandoandthat'sacriteria,apolicy
14 thatcan'tbesubstitutedforsomethingelse. SoI
15 don'tknowwhyyoukeepsayingthisisgoingtoaffect
16 privatedevelopment.
17 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,inin
18 Ricci,theCourtreservedthequestionwhether
19 disparateimpactliabilityinrequiringracebased
20 decisionmakingwouldviolatetheequalprotection
21 clause,andthereisa
22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Butthisisnot
23 racebaseddecisionmaking. Areyousayingthatthe10
24 percentplaninincollegesisracebasedifit'san
25 absolutelyneutralpolicythathappenstoaddressa
AldersonReportingCompany
-
23
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 need,whichistointegrateschools?
2 MR.KELLER: Butthe
3 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Sowhyisitwrongto
4 haveaneutralpolicy? Becausenoneofthepolicies
5 thatwereimposedhereandinmostinallothercases
6 areracebased. They'repoliciesthatareraceneutral,
7 buthappentohaveabetterimpactintermsof
8 integration.
9 MR.KELLER: JusticeSotomayor,Iwould
10 disagreethatit'scompletelyraceneutral,becauseat
11 theoutset,statisticaldisparitiesbasedonrace,
12 racialclassifications,areusedandthishasthe
13 potentialtosubordinatetraditional
14 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,that
15 JUSTICESCALIA: Whichisnotthecasefor
16 the10percentplanthatTexasuses.
17 MR.KELLER: Absolutely,JusticeScalia.
18 JUSTICESCALIA: There'snoracialthingin
19 that. Ifyou'reinthetop10percentofyourhigh
20 schoolclass,yougototheStateuniversity.
21 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Whatwasthereason
22 for
23 JUSTICESCALIA: Noraceaboutit.
24 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Whatwasthereasonfor
25 it? Youcansayit'saneutral,10percentisneutral;
AldersonReportingCompany
-
24
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 butit'sjustglaringinthefacethatthelegislature
2 thatpassedthiswasverymuchraceconscious. Itwas
3 thewaythattheysawofgettingaminoritypopulation
4 intocolleges.
5 Idon'tthinkthere'sreallyadoubtthat
6 factuallythat'swhatpromptedthe10percentplan.
7 WhentheUniversityofTexaswastolditsaffirmative
8 actionplanwasnogood,thenthelegislaturecameback
9 withthe10percentplan.
10 MR.KELLER: Butthere'sadifference
11 betweenthatraceconsciousdecisionmakingand,here,a
12 situationwhereliabilityistriggeredbasedon
13 statisticaldisparities.
14 That'swhytheWatsonplurality,Justice
15 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: It'snotliabilityis
16 notwell,"triggered"isagoodword;butit'snot
17 imposedbecauseofthat. It'simposedbecausethelower
18 courtfound,rightlyorwronglyIdon'twanttoget
19 intothemeritsofthatthatsomeofthecriteria
20 beingusedwaswereunnecessaryandthatwasand
21 therewasnolegitimatebusinessreasonforit.
22 Icould,asJusticeBreyersaid,quarrel
23 withthatconclusion;butthat'sinapplication. That's
24 notinthestandardthatdisparateimpactimposes.
25 MR.KELLER: Butwhatobjectivestandardis
AldersonReportingCompany
-
25
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 theretomeasurewhethersomethingisasubstantial
2 interestinthehousingcontext? Andthat'swhy
3 disparateimpactliabilitycanleadtothefunctional
4 equivalentofaquotasystem. That'swhattheWatson
5 pluralitysaid,WardsCove,andJusticeScalia's
6 concurrenceinRicci.
7 Mr.ChiefJustice,ifIcouldreservethe
8 remainderofmytimeforrebuttal.
9 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,counsel.
10 Mr.Daniel.
11 ORALARGUMENTOFMICHAELM.DANIEL
12 ONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT
13 MR.DANIEL: Mr.ChiefJustice,andmayit
14 pleasetheCourt:
15 Theremedyinthiscaseisperfectly
16 consistentwiththeinterestinrevitalizinglowincome,
17 minorityareas. Theremedyinthiscaseshowsthat
18 thereisnothingabouttheFairHousingAct
19 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: We'renottalkingabout
20 thiscase.
21 MR.DANIEL: No. I'mjustusingitasan
22 example.
23 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Allright. Whydon't
24 yougettothelegalissue,ifyoucould.
25 MR.DANIEL: Thelegalissueis
AldersonReportingCompany
-
26
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 "unavailable." Unavailableisaresultoriented
2 measure. Youlooktoseehowmanyunitsareavailable
3 inanarea. Youcountthem. Thatistheresult. How
4 manyunitsareavailableinanotherarea? Youcount
5 them. That'saresult.
6 It'sclearfromtheCongressionalRecord
7 Congresswasworriedandconcernedaboutmakingunits
8 onlyavailableinlowincome,minorityareasthatit
9 called"ghettos." Theremedythatitwanted
10 JUSTICESCALIA: Itisn'tthe"unavailable"
11 wordthat'stheproblem. Theproblemisunavailableon
12 thebasisofrace. Youcansay"unavailable"amillion
13 times,butthestatuterequiresthatitbemade
14 unavailableforracialreasons.
15 Andyou'resaying,no,itdoesn'thaveto
16 be;itcouldbeunavailablesimplybecauseyouusesome
17 othernonracialreason,whichisstupid,right? That's,
18 that'syourargument. Ifitproducesaresultthat
19 isisnotwhat,Idon'tknowthattheraces
20 havetobeinthesameproportionastheyareinthe
21 generalpopulation. Right? Imean,that'swhatyou're
22 arguing.
23 MR.DANIEL: Theargumentisthatif,in
24 fact,racialdiscriminationisaforeseeableconsequence
25 ofwhatsomeoneisdoing
AldersonReportingCompany
-
27
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 JUSTICESCALIA: No,no,no,no. Racial
2 disparityisnotracialdiscrimination. Thefactthat
3 theNFLisislargelyblackplayersisnot
4 discrimination. Discriminationrequiresintentionally
5 excludingpeopleofacertainrace.
6 MR.DANIEL: Itcertainlyincludesthat,
7 Justice
8 JUSTICESCALIA: Solet'snotlet'snot
9 equateracialdisparitywithdiscrimination. Thetwo
10 arequitedifferent,andwhatyou'rearguinghereis
11 thatracialdisparityisenoughtomaketomake
12 whateverthepolicyadoptedunlawful,right?
13 MR.DANIEL: No,JusticeScalia. That'snot
14 whattheargumentis;andthat'snotwhat'sinthe
15 argument,it'snotwhat'sintheregulations.
16 Theargumentis,isthatifI'mgoingto
17 makeadisparatetreatmentcasethatthereis
18 intentionaldiscrimination,I'mgoingtostartwiththe
19 effects,justthesameplaceIstartwithadisparate
20 impact. Istartwiththeeffects: Hastherebeenan
21 effectthatisconsistentwithdiscrimination?
22 Indisparateimpact,Ithengoontothe
23 nextstep: Isthereaninterestthatjustifiesthe
24 discriminatoryeffect? Itcouldbethesame
25 discriminatoryeffectthatiscausedbyintentional
AldersonReportingCompany
-
28
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 discrimination.
2 JUSTICEKAGAN: Mr.Daniel,Ihadthought
3 thatJusticeScalia'squestionwaswhetherthe"because
4 of"languageprecludesadisparateimpacttheory;in
5 otherwords,whetherthe"becauseof"languagesignals
6 thatithastohaveacertainkindofintentwhichis
7 notpartofadisparatetreatment,adisparateimpact
8 theory.
9 AndIwouldhavethoughtthatyourmain
10 argumentaboutthatis,well,actually,theCourthas
11 heldnumeroustimes,intheTitleVIIcontext,inthe
12 ADEAcontext,intheRehabilitationActcontext,inthe
13 EmergencySchoolAidActcontext,thatthat"becauseof"
14 languagecanbereadtoincludedisparateimpactclaims,
15 andthatit'satleastambiguousastowhetheritshould
16 bereadsointhiscaseastothisparticularstatute.
17 MR.DANIEL: Yes,JusticeKagan.
18 JUSTICEKAGAN: Imean,isthatyour
19 argument,orisyourargumentsomethingelse?
20 MR.DANIEL: Thatisthebasicargumenton
21 "becauseof,"thatithasbeeninterpretedbothways;
22 andinTitleVIIandinSmith,itdidnotrequireproof
23 ofintent. Inthiscase
24 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: How
25 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldyou
AldersonReportingCompany
-
29
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: I'msorry. Ifyou
2 wantto,youcancompleteyouranswertoJusticeKagan.
3 Itwasnotahardquestion.
4 MR.DANIEL: No,ChiefJustice.
5 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Howisahousing
6 authoritysupposedtoifyouhaveaclaimof
7 disparateimpact,howisahousingauthoritysupposedto
8 curetheallegedproblem?
9 MR.DANIEL: Assumingthatyougothrough
10 thestepsandthatthereis,infact,aneedtocurethe
11 problem
12 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldyou
13 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Well,I'msorry,I'm
14 sorry. Youhavemadeashowingofdisparateimpact,
15 thattheimpactandadverseconsequencesfora
16 particularrace.
17 Whatisthehousingauthoritysupposedtodo
18 atthatpoint?
19 MR.DANIEL: Atthatpoint,thehousing
20 authorityistosay,thisiswhatinterestwehavethat
21 isservedbythediscriminatorypracticecausingthe
22 racialsegregation. That'swhatandtheysay,it
23 whateverthatinterestisandtheysayit,thatthis
24 isthisinterestjustifiesourpracticethatwe're
25 doing.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
30
1 Atthatpointintime,wecomebackandsay:
2 Butthereareotherwaystodoitthatareless
3 discriminatory.
4 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Isthere
5 MR.DANIEL: And
6 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Isthereawayto
7 avoidadisparateimpactconsequencewithouttakingrace
8 intoaccountincarryingoutthegovernmentalactivity?
9 Itseemstomethatiftheobjectionisthat
10 therearen'tasufficientnumberofminoritiesina
11 particularproject,youhavetolookattheraceuntil
12 yougetwhateveryouregardastherighttarget.
13 MR.DANIEL: Youdon'thavetolookatthe
14 raceatall. Youlookatthepracticecausingit;and
15 youstopthepractice,likeinthiscaseorlikeinthe
16 zoningcase.
17 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Well,whatwas,infact,
18 theremedy? Imean,thiswasacasewheretherewas
19 litigation,youprevailed,andtherewasaremedy. So
20 therewasdisparateimpact.
21 AndwhatdidtheCourtsayhadtobedoneto
22 cureit,tocurewhatitsawastheoffensetotheFair
23 HousingAct?
24 MR.DANIEL: Itsaidithadtostopthe
25 discriminatoryhousingpracticeandthenithadto
AldersonReportingCompany
-
31
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 thenitorderedinplacetheremedysuggestedbythe
2 Statethatwas,infact,thelessdiscriminatory
3 alternative,toalargeextent,towhattheyhadbeen
4 doing.
5 There'snoracialgoalsinit,there'sno
6 raceconsciousinit,there'snoracialcriteriainit.
7 Itisathereisanditistheremedythatthe
8 Statesayswillworktostopthediscriminatory
9 practice.
10 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldwegoback?
11 MR.DANIEL: Infact
12 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Couldwegoback? I
13 thinkyou'vebeeninterrupted.
14 Thestepsare: Firstyoushowthat
15 there'sthatthenumbersareoff. Thentheother
16 sidetellsyouwhatthereasonisforwhythenumbers
17 areoff.
18 You,then,haveanopportunityoran
19 obligationtocomeandsuggestalternativemethodsof
20 takingcareofthelegitimatebusinessneed. Correct?
21 MR.DANIEL: Yes,JusticeSotomayor.
22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Soyouthosearethe
23 threesteps?
24 MR.DANIEL: Yes.
25 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Ifyoucanproposeways
AldersonReportingCompany
-
32
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 thatareraceneutral,practicesthat`areraceneutral
2 thatwillhavetakecareoftheirneeds,meaningthe
3 otherside'sneeds,thenyougetrelief.
4 MR.DANIEL: And,forexample,oneofthe
5 waysproposedwas: Donotcontinueputtingprojects
6 nexttolandfillsandhazardousindustrialuses. That
7 was
8 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Don'tyouhaveatension
9 betweentwostatuteshere? Imean,youhavetheFair
10 HousingAct;andthenthereisthelawthatsetsupthis
11 taxcredit,right? Anddoesn'tthatlawsaythatthere
12 shouldbeapriorityforrevitalizingdecaying
13 communities?
14 MR.DANIEL: Thelawspecificallysaysthat
15 thereshouldbeapreferenceamongalltheprojectsthat
16 aregoingtobeawardedforapplicationsthatcontribute
17 toaconcertedcommunityrevitalizationplan. That
18 preferenceishonoredintheremedyanditisinthe
19 remedy. Ifyouareifanapplicationis
20 concertingiscontributingtoaconcertedcommunity
21 revitalizationplanjustlikeintheIRScode,thenit
22 getsthesamepointsasaaprojectthatisgoingto
23 beinahigherincome,lowpovertyareawithgood
24 schools.
25 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Whyshouldn'titgetmore
AldersonReportingCompany
-
33
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 ifthetaxlawexpressesthatpreferenceforthe
2 revitalization?
3 MR.DANIEL: JusticeGinsburg,itcouldif
4 theStatesetitupthatway. TheStatejusthasn'tset
5 itupthatway. TheStatecouldsetitupsothat
6 there'sapoolofunitsthataregoingtobeawarded
7 projectsandpickoutofthereandgivepreferenceto
8 thoseconcertedcommunityrevitalizationplans.
9 ThedistrictcourtfoundthattheStatedid
10 notdothat. TheStateinsteadgaveatwopointone
11 ortwopointselectioncriteriabonusforthatkindof
12 project. That'sthat'sbutthat'saStatechoice.
13 JUSTICEBREYER: CanyougobacktoJustice
14 Scalia'squestion,please? BecauseItookbecauseI
15 justwanttohearyouranswertoit.
16 AsIunderstoodhisquestion,itwasyou
17 lookatthewordsandthewordssay,"makeunavailable
18 becauseofrace." Andwhatyou'resayingisthose
19 words,"makeunavailablebecauseofrace,"caninclude
20 thecircumstancewhereyoumakeunavailableforareason
21 thathasnothingtodowithracewheretheeffectof
22 thatreasonistocausearacialdisparityof
23 significanceanditcannotbejustifiedastheleast
24 restrictivewaytobringaboutit. That'sthepoint.
25 Butyou'resayingthosewordsareconsistent
AldersonReportingCompany
-
34
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 withthelongerphraseIjustsaid. Okay. Isthere
2 caselaworother,asidefromthisarea,whichbuilds
3 yourpointandsays,yes,thosewordslinguisticallyand
4 legallydoincludethedisparateimpactsituation,or
5 can. Itakeitthat'shisquestionandIwaslooking
6 MR.DANIEL: ThisCourt
7 JUSTICEBREYER: forananswersomewhat
8 along
9 MR.DANIEL: AndthisCourt
10 JUSTICEBREYER: thoselinesorany
11 other
12 MR.DANIEL: ThisCourt'stwomajoropinions
13 onthisare,ofcourse,GriggsandSmith. Thesame
14 issuewaswrestledwithwiththeothercourtswhohave
15 foundthesamethinginthecourtsofappeals,wrestling
16 withthisbecauseof,anditisatleastadmitsthat
17 itisaaitcanit'sapermissiblereading
18 eitherway.
19 JUSTICEALITO: InSmith,however,the
20 Courtthepluralityopinioncitedtwoadditional
21 things. Itdidn'tjustsay"becauseof"canmean
22 disparateimpact. Itcitedtheeffectslanguage,which
23 wasthesubjectofsomequestioningduringGeneral
24 Keller'sargument,butitalsocitedtheRFOAprovision.
25 Now,noneofneitherofthoseIthink
AldersonReportingCompany
-
35
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 thelatterismoresignificantandthere'snothinglike
2 thatinTitleVIII,isthere?
3 MR.DANIEL: Theexemptionsareare
4 similarinthefactthatwhatthosetheydothe
5 RFOAinSmithcameinandbasicallysaidevenifyou
6 havedisparateimpactonthesefactors,ifit'sa
7 reasonablefactorotherthanage,we'regoingtoexcuse
8 thedisparateimpact. Okay. Nowthetheexemptions
9 speaktothedisparateimpactandthere'snonothing
10 intherethatsaysthatthere'sthatyouusebythe
11 reasonthatyoucanexcuse,thatthosedon'tcount
12 JUSTICEALITO: Soisthatcriticaltoyour
13 argument? Thattheexemptionsarecriticaltoyour
14 argument?
15 MR.DANIEL: Wewethinktheexemptions
16 aretexttosupporttheuseofadisparateimpact
17 liability. Wethinkthere'salotofotherthings. The
18 statutoryconstructionusedinthecongressionalrecord,
19 whattheCongresswantedtodo,3601,whichCongress
20 passedtosayandhasbeenusedtogiveanexpansive
21 interpretationinmattersofstandingandenforcement.
22 Wethinkthoseallthosetoolsofstatutory
23 constructioncombinetomakeitatleastpermissible
24 and,therefore,givingduedeferencetotheHUD
25 regulation.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
36
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 JUSTICEALITO: Iftherewasnodisparate
2 impactundertheActasinitiallyenacted,doyouargue
3 thattheexemptionsexpandedtheActsothatitthen,as
4 of1988,includeddisparateimpact?
5 MR.DANIEL: Well,itiftherewasnone
6 then,therethereindicatedthe1988Congress
7 thoughttherewas. Wedon'tthinkyoucanlookatwhat
8 Congressdidin1968andsaytheydidnotintendto
9 covereffects. Theysayittimeandtimeagain.
10 JUSTICEALITO: Well,thatwasn'treallymy
11 question. WhatCongressthoughttheActmeantin1988
12 wouldn'thaveanysignificancewouldn'thavemuch
13 significanceiftheyhadn'tdoneanything,wouldit?
14 MR.DANIEL: No,Ithinktheyweredoingit
15 in1988,thatcountsfor1988. Wethinkthatitthey
16 haddoneitbefore.
17 JUSTICEALITO: Allright. Sodidwhat
18 theydidthethingsthattheyactuallydidin1988
19 expandthecoverageoftheAct?
20 MR.DANIEL: No,Justice. Wethinkthatthe
21 coveragewasalreadythereinthe1968Act. Whenyou
22 lookatallthetoolsofstatutoryconstruction,they
23 allpointinonedirection,andthatis,tothatbeing
24 aatleastapermissible,ifnotthebest,
25 interpretationin1968thatCongressintendedtocover
AldersonReportingCompany
-
37
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 effectsofpastsegregationandotherdiscrimination,
2 whetheritwasintentionalornot. It'sthroughoutthat
3 record,itisdiscussingthemajorimplementofracial
4 segregationandhowitwasbroughtabout. Itintended
5 toendtheeffectsofthat. Itsaiditagainandagain.
6 Wethinkthe1988,itcertainlyrecognized
7 thedisparateimpactrule,ittalkedaboutthe
8 disparateimpactruleinthecourtsofappeals. Itknew
9 itwasthere. Itwasbeingdoneininthecontextof
10 thosecourtsofappeals.
11 Nofurtherquestions?
12 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,counsel.
13 GeneralVerrilli.
14 ORALARGUMENTOFDONALDB.VERRILLI,JR.
15 ONBEHALFOFUNITEDSTATES,
16 ASAMICUSCURIAE,SUPPORTINGRESPONDENT
17 GENERALVERRILLI: Mr.ChiefJustice,and
18 mayitpleasetheCourt:
19 Thestatutoryprovisionsthatmostclearly
20 showthatHUD'sdisparateimpactregulationsarea
21 permissibleinterpretationoftheFairHousingActare
22 thethreeexemptions. Thoseexemptionspresupposethe
23 existenceofdisparateimpactliabilityandsoserveno
24 realpurposewithoutthemwithoutdisparateimpact
25 liability.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
38
1 Andtheprovenanceofthoseexemptionslends
2 particularlystrongsupportforthereasonablenessof
3 HUD'sreading. Theywereaddedbyamendmentin1988at
4 atimewhennine,Ithinkthenumberisninecourtsof
5 appeals,hadruledthattheFairHousingActauthorized
6 disparateimpact,andtheyandtheywereaddedto
7 providedefensestoexemptionsfromthey'relabeled
8 asexemptionsfrom,carveoutsfrom,disparateimpact
9 liability. Soyou'vegot
10 JUSTICESCALIA: Ithinkyourcasewouldbe
11 strongeriftherehadbeennocourtofappealsthat
12 hadthathadfavoreddisparateimpact. Thenthen
13 youcouldn'tpossiblyargue,well,thatwasputinjust
14 toeliminatetheerroneousjudgmentsofthesecourtsof
15 appealsinincertainareas,anyway. Itwouldbe
16 betterifnocourtofappealshadsaidthat
17 GENERALVERRILLI: Well
18 JUSTICESCALIA: andCongresshadenacted
19 these
20 GENERALVERRILLI: No,Iactuallythinkit's
21 betterthewayithappenedbecauseforourcase
22 becauseofthereenactmentcanon. YouhaveSection
23 805ofthislawwasreenactedagainstthebackdrop,so
24 youhavethereenactmentofthoseninecourtsof
25 appeals. Soyouhavethereenactmentcanonandyouhave
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
39
1 thecanonagainstthepresumptionagainstsuperfluous
2 amendmentsbothworking. Andremember,we'reinChevron
3 territoryhere. Sothequestioniswhetherthe
4 statutorytextunambiguouslyforeclosesHUD's
5 interpretation.
6 JUSTICEALITO: CanIaskyouaquestion
7 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Well,oneconcern
8 oneconcernaboutdisparateimpactisthatit'svery
9 difficulttodecidewhatimpactisisgoodandbad.
10 Taketwoproposals. Oneisaproposaltobuildnew
11 housinginalowincomearea,itwouldbenefit
12 primaryprimarilyminorities;newhousing,good
13 thing. Theotherproposalistobuildhousinginamore
14 affluentarea. Itwouldhelppromoteintegrationof
15 housing;alsoagoodthing.
16 Whichonegetscreditforundertryingto
17 decidetheimpact? Theonethatisrevitalizinga
18 lowincomeareaortheonethatisintegratinga
19 highincomearea?
20 GENERALVERRILLI: Right. Iunderstand
21 that,Mr.ChiefJustice,andtheremaybedifficult
22 questions. Ofcourse,theagencyherechargedby
23 Congressexpressly,inthe1988amendments,Iwouldadd,
24 withinterpretingandenforcingtheseprovisions,has
25 concludedthattheydothatdisparateimpactisthe
AldersonReportingCompany
-
40
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 rightpolicyjudgment.
2 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: No,no. But
3 whichwhichcounts? Imean,whichbenefitsyou're
4 tryingtoseeifthere'sadisparateimpacton
5 minorities.
6 GENERALVERRILLI: Itmaywellbe
7 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Ifyougivethe
8 proposaltothelowincomehousingintheaffluent
9 neighborhood,thatcertainlybenefitsintegration. If
10 yougivetheproposaltofundtheproposalinthe
11 lowincomearea,thatcertainlyhelpshousing
12 opportunitiesthere.
13 GENERALVERRILLI: SoI'mgoingtoanswer
14 YourHonor'squestiondirectly.
15 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Good.
16 GENERALVERRILLI: ButIthinkyou'vegotto
17 doitinthecontextofthewayinwhicha
18 disparateimpactcasehasgottobeproven. It'snot
19 enoughjustthatthere'sastatisticaldisparity. A
20 plaintiffhasgottodemonstratethataparticular
21 practiceorcriterionbeingappliedisbeing
22 JUSTICEGINSBURG: Andwhatisthepractice
23 here? BecausethatwasthequestionJudgeJones
24 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,youknow,that'sa
25 verygoodquestion. IfImayjustanswerJustice
AldersonReportingCompany
-
41
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 Ginsburg,andI'llcomebackandfinishmyanswerto
2 you,Mr.ChiefJustice.
3 Thatthethat'saverygoodpoint,
4 JusticeGinsburg. Andwearealthoughwearehere
5 defendingHUD'sinterpretation,andwethinktheanswer
6 tothequestionpresentedisyes. Thatthat'swe
7 don'thaveapositiononwhetherthisisaviable
8 disparateimpactclaim,andwethinkJudgeJoneshas
9 madeagoodpointinourinherconcurrencebecause
10 it'snotcleartouswhatspecificpracticethatthe
11 theStateagencyhasengagedinherethatwouldwould
12 justifythefindingofdisparateimpactliability. And
13 onethingthatwassuggestedismaybethatcouldbe
14 dealtwithonremandfromthedistrictcourt.
15 AndIdothinkthat'sandthatgetsto
16 whatIwastryingtosaytoyou,Mr.ChiefJustice,
17 whichisthatyou'vegottoapplythetestwhichis
18 HUDhassetoutasarealtest.
19 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Well,withrespect,
20 Idon'tthinkthat'sresponsive. Yousayyoulookat
21 whichprovisionishavingthedisparateimpact,butI
22 stilldon'tunderstandwhichisthedisparateimpact.
23 GENERALVERRILLI: Well
24 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Inotherwords,is
25 ittheprovisionthatcausesmoreproposalstogoto
AldersonReportingCompany
-
42
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 lowincomehousingintheaffluentarea? Orisitthe
2 provisionthatcausesmoreapprovalofmoreproposals
3 inthelowincomearea? You'vegottoknowwhatyou're
4 shootingatbeforeyoucantellifyou'vemissed.
5 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,thedisparate
6 right. Thedisparitytiedtoaparticularpractice,
7 it'sjustthefirststepintheanalysis. Thesecond
8 stepintheanalysisisjustification,what'sthe
9 justification.
10 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: I'msorry,Iand
11 I'lljustaskitforthelasttimeandthenletyouget
12 on.
13 GENERALVERRILLI: Yeah.
14 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: You'resayingyou
15 needthejustification,butforwhat? Whichisthebad
16 thingtodo,notpromotebetterhousinginthe
17 lowincomeareaornotpromotehousingintegration?
18 GENERALVERRILLI: Youknow,itmaybe
19 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Yousayyoulookat
20 what'scausingthebadeffect,butwhat'sthebad
21 effect?
22 GENERALVERRILLI: Itmaybethatneitheris
23 becausethestatemaysaythethegovernmentmaysay
24 inthefirstcase,well,thisisourjustification,and
25 thatmaybeajustificationthatholdsup. The
AldersonReportingCompany
-
43
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 governmentmaysayinthesecondcase,well,that'sour
2 justification,andthatmaybeajustificationthat
3 holdsup. SoIjustthinkthatyou'vegot
4 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Doyouthinkthata
5 privatedeveloperwouldeverbefoundguiltyof
6 disparateimpactbecauseheownsapieceofpropertyin
7 anaffluentneighborhood?
8 GENERALVERRILLI:
9 coursenot.
10 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
11 develophisproperty,right?
12 GENERALVERRILLI:
13 thoughtthequestion
14 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
No,certainlynot,of
He'spermittedto
Yes,ofcourse. AndI
Thedisparateimpact
15 wouldbeifhefailstosellormakeavailabletopeople
16 ofallraces,let'ssay,theunitsinthatproperty,
17 correct?
18 GENERALVERRILLI:
19 specificpractice.
20 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
21 GENERALVERRILLI:
22 justthefirststate
23 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR:
24 practice
25 GENERALVERRILLI:
There'sgottobea
Practice.
That'sright. Andthat's
Allright. Thespecific
Andthat'sjustthefirst
AldersonReportingCompany
-
44
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 statementintheanalysis
2 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: thathasa
3 business
4 GENERALVERRILLI: andit'sgottobe
5 unjustified.
6 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Exactly.
7 GENERALVERRILLI: Thatandthat's
8 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Ithoughtthe
9 questionwas,though,Imean,theit'snota
10 developer,it'stheDepartmentofHousingandCommunity
11 Affairs,andIthoughtthechallengewenttowherethey
12 werebeenwheretheyweresupporting
13 development
14 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,this
15 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: notthe
16 developer,butbut
17 GENERALVERRILLI: Thismaynotbeagood
18 disparateimpactclaim,Mr.ChiefJustice. Butthe
19 casesthatareintheHeartlandarereallypretty
20 straightforward.
21 JUSTICEKENNEDY: Butareyousayingthatin
22 eachcasethattheChiefJusticeputs,thereis
23 initiallyadisparateimpactatstepone,thatisto
24 say,CommunityAwantsthedevelopmenttobeinthe
25 suburbs. Andthenextstate,thecommunitywantsitto
AldersonReportingCompany
-
45
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 beinthepoorneighborhood. Isityourposition,it
2 seemstome,andthepositionoftheRespondents,that
3 ineithercase,steponehasbeensatisfied.
4 GENERALVERRILLI: Thatmayberight,
5 JusticeKennedy,butIthinkthepoint
6 JUSTICEKENNEDY: Butthatthatseems
7 veryoddtome.
8 GENERALVERRILLI: ButIthinkthatevenif
9 they'redifficultcasesunderdisparateimpact,there
10 arecasesintheHeartlandthathavebeenadjudicated
11 for35or40years,casessuchasthereisazoning
12 restrictionthathasadisparateimpactthatitcannot
13 bejustifiedonasubstantialbasis. Therethereis
14 anoccupancyrestrictionforanapartment
15 JUSTICEALITO: CanIaskyouaquestion
16 I'msorry,aboutChevron. Shouldwebeconcernedhere
17 abouttheuseofChevrontomanipulatethedecisionsof
18 thisCourt? ThetheFairHousingActwasenactedin
19 1968. For40yearsplus,therewerenoHUDregulations.
20 ThenwegrantedcertintheGallaghercase,anditwas
21 onlyafterthatandwithin,Ithink,daysafterthat
22 thattheHUDregulationswereissued. Andthenthe
23 Gallaghercasesettled,andthenweissuedthenwe
24 grantedcertintheMt.Hollycase,andtheMt.Holly
25 casesettled. Soshouldwebetroubledbythis
AldersonReportingCompany
-
46
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 chronology?
2 GENERALVERRILLI: SotheIunderstand
3 theimportofyourquestion,YourHonor. IguessI
4 wouldsayacoupleofthingsinresponse. Thefirstis
5 thatHUD,intheformaladjudicationsreviewedbythe
6 secretary,hasfounddisparateimpactliability
7 availableundertheseprovisionsintheFairHousingAct
8 since1992,Ibelieve. Andthosewouldbeentitledto
9 Chevrondeference,andIdothink,respectfully,that
10 that'sapointthatwemadeinourbriefininthe
11 firstcase,thetheGallaghercase.
12 Second,andIdon'tmeantobeflipaboutit
13 becauseIunderstandtheimportofYourHonor's
14 question,butIdothinkitoverestimatestheefficiency
15 ofthegovernmenttothinkthatyoucouldget,youknow,
16 asupposedrulemakingonanissuelikethisoutwithin
17 sevendays.
18 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Itwasa
19 coincidence.
20 JUSTICESCALIA: Thatwasverypersuasive.
21 GENERALVERRILLI: Ireallyandsoso
22 Idon'tIthink,actually,thishasbeenaposition
23 ofHUDforaverylongtime,andyouwouldgetChevron
24 deferencefortheadjudications. Ithinkthat's
25 prettyprettyclear,whollyapartfromthereg,but
AldersonReportingCompany
-
47
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 wedohavetheregnowandIdothinkitgetsChevron
2 deference.
3 AndifIcouldturntothequestionof
4 avoidance,constitutionalavoidance,thathascomeup.
5 Idon'tthinkthisisasuitablecaseforconstitutional
6 avoidance,andletmetrytoexplainwhy. Whateverone
7 mightthinkintheTitleVIIcontextaboutthe
8 consequencesoffindingdisparateimpactliability,this
9 isaverydifferentcontext. InaTitleVIIcontext,
10 theissuehasbeenraisedisthattheonlywaytoavoid
11 disparateimpactliabilityistoengageinracebased
12 remedies,notracebasedthinkingaboutwhatneutral
13 criteriontoadopt,butracebasedremedies.
14 AndhereintheHeartlandcasesunderthe
15 FairHousingAct,youaren'tgoingtohavethatkindof
16 anissue. Theremedyisgoingtobethesubstitutionof
17 oneraceneutralruleforanotherraceneutralrule.
18 Forexample,ifaifalandlordcannotjustifyan
19 occupancyrestrictionthat'sparticularlytight,the
20 theremedythereisgoingtobeeithernooccupancy
21 restrictionoralooseroccupancyrestriction. Andthe
22 consequenceinthosecasessamethingwithzoningand
23 otherthingstheconsequenceinthosecasesisis
24 thatnoonegetsclassifiedbyrace,noonegetsa
25 burdenimposeduponthembecauseofrace,andnoone
AldersonReportingCompany
-
48
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 getsabenefitbecauseofrace.
2 JUSTICESCALIA: Whatwhatruleyou
3 selectdependsonwhataffectthatwillhaveonracial
4 racialuseofthefacility.
5 GENERALVERRILLI: Well,Ithinkthe
6 consequencenoIthink,JusticeScalia,withall
7 dueall
8 JUSTICESCALIA: Youselectonthebasisof
9 whataffectitwillhaveonrace.
10 GENERALVERRILLI: Wellwell,butthat
11 kindofconsideration,solongasthetherulethat
12 comeslaterisaraceneutralrule,seemstomeis
13 exactlythekindofthingthatthepluralityopinionof
14 thisCourtinCrosonsaidinthecontractingcontext
15 thatgovernmentscoulddo. Theycouldn'tafforda
16 preferencetominoritycontractors,buttheycoulddo
17 suchthingstheCourtsuggestedaschangingthebonding
18 requirementsorchangingotherfinancialrequirementsin
19 ordertomaketheminoritycontractorswhichtendedto
20 benewer,smallerbusinessesmoreeligible. Those
21 those
22 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Tounderscorethat,
23 becauseIthinkeverybodyisgettingconfusedwiththis,
24 disparateimpactdoesnotgotowhotheytakeunless
25 theysetupapractice
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
49
1 GENERALVERRILLI: That'sthat'scorrect.
2 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: thathasthataffect.
3 GENERALVERRILLI: AndsointheHeartland
4 cases,withrespecttotheFairHousingAct,thekinds
5 ofremediesthataregoingtobeimposedarelikethe
6 kindsofremediesthattheCourtsaidorthe
7 plurality,excuseme,setinCrosonwouldfind.
8 And,JusticeKennedy,they'relikethekinds
9 ofraceneutralconsiderationsthatYourHonor'sopinion
10 inParentsinvolvesthatwererefined.
11 JUSTICEBREYER: Whatyou'resayingis
12 supposethattheplaintiffsinthiscase,thatside,
13 winstotrythey'retryingtowin. Thedefense,
14 ontheotherit'snottruethatthatmeansall
15 Section8housingisnowgoingtobeorevenalarge
16 amountisgoingtobeputinrichneighborhoods.
17 First,theycandefendonthegroundthatwe
18 don'thavethatpractice,toputitinpoor
19 neighborhoods. Second,theycansay,yes,wedo,but
20 don'tyouseethatisn'tgoingtohurtminorities
21 becauseitputsthoseminoritiesinhousingwheremany
22 ofthemare,unfortunately,inpoorneighborhoods,and
23 itdoesn'thavethegreateffectondesegregationthat
24 theythink. Orthird,iftheyloseonthat,theycan
25 saybutanywayit'sjustifiedforawholebunchof
AldersonReportingCompany
-
50
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 reasons.
2 GENERALVERRILLI: Yes,butso
3 JUSTICEBREYER: Sotheansweriscaseby
4 case,theyhaveaspecificsetofformsthatgive
5 answers
6 GENERALVERRILLI: That's
7 JUSTICEBREYER: andjudgesjudgeit
8 GENERALVERRILLI: Absolutely.
9 JUSTICEBREYER: andHUDcancomeinand
10 decide,andthereisnoneedtothrowthewholebaby
11 outorIdon'tknowwhetherit'sthebabyorthebath
12 water,whateveryou'rethrowingout. Butyoudon'thave
13 tothrowoutthewholebigthinginordertoprevent
14 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: SojustI'm
15 sorry. SoJustsoIcanunderstand,because,again,I
16 don'tknowwhatyou'reshootingfor. Twodifferent
17 communities,okay? Theyhavethesetaxcredits,
18 whatevertogiveout. Oneplace,theygiveittothe
19 housingintheaffluentneighborhood;theother,they
20 giveittothehouseinthelowincomeneighborhood.
21 They'rebothsuedfordisparateimpact. Intheone,
22 theysay,oh,no,no,thisisgoodbecausewe're
23 promotingintegrationsotheimpactonminoritiesisnot
24 aproblem. Andtheothersays,no,thisisgoodbecause
25 we'rerevitalizinglowincomeneighborhoodsandthat
AldersonReportingCompany
-
51
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 helpstheminorities. Theybothwin?
2 MR.VERRILLI: Theymightbothwin,yes.
3 AndifIcould,Ijustwanttofinishuponthe
4 constitutionalavoidancepoint,ifIcouldconnecting
5 somethingJusticeBreyersaid.
6 Ifthereareparticularinstancesinwhich
7 thereisaconcernthattherecognitionofdisparate
8 impactliabilitycouldresultinnotjustracebased
9 thinkingaboutneutralmeansbutracebasedremedies,it
10 seemstometheanswerthereistheanswerthatthe
11 Courtusuallygives,whichisthinkaboutthemonan
12 asappliedbasis. Butthatisn'tajustificationfor
13 denyingHUDtheauthoritythatwesubmitthatHUDhas
14 underundertheregulationsunderthestatuteas
15 amendedin1988whenCongressspecificallygaveHUDthe
16 authoritytointerprettheseprovisionsanddidso
17 againstthebackdropofimposingtheexemptionswhich
18 presupposeddisparateimpactliabilityandreenacting
19 thestatuteinwhich,afterninecourtsofappealshad
20 foundthatitdidimposedisparateimpactliability.
21 ThequestionhereiswhetherunderChevronthestatutory
22 textreadfairlyin1988,takingallprovisionsofthe
23 statutetogether,unambiguouslyforeclosesHUDfrom
24 findingdisparateimpactliabilityhere. Andweassume
25 andweawesubmitthattheanswertothatquestion
AldersonReportingCompany
-
52
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 mustbeno,itdoesnotunambiguouslyforforbidHUD
2 fromreachingtheconclusionthatitreachedand,
3 therefore,theanswertothequestionpresentedinthis
4 casewhichiswhethertheFairHousingActrecognizes
5 disparateimpactliabilityisyes.
6 JUSTICEKAGAN: AndGeneral,couldIjust
7 askIdon'tknowalotaboutthisareaandItakeit
8 thatoneofthethingsthatyouarewarningusagainst
9 isseeingtheentireareathroughtheprismofthisone
10 quiteunusualcase. Andyou'vereferredafewtimesto
11 sortoftheHeartlandcaseswithoutreallygettingout
12 whattheHeartlandcasesare. So,forme,whatare
13 they?
14 MR.VERRILLI: Surethey'rethekindmay
15 Ianswer,Mr.ChiefJustice?
16 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Sure.
17 MR.VERRILLI: Thankyou. They'rethekinds
18 ofcasesthathavebeenlitigatedandyou'llseeinthe
19 courtsofopinions,courtofappeals'opinionsfor35
20 yearsrestrictionssayatownadoptsarestriction
21 sayingyoucan'tconverthousingfromownershipto
22 rentalunlessyou'rerentingtoabloodrelativehasthe
23 effectofexcludingminorities. Townadoptsan
24 occupancyrestrictionforapartmentbuildingsthat'sso
25 tightthatyou'renotgoingtobeabletofamilies
AldersonReportingCompany
-
53
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 withkidsaren'tgoingtobeabletolivethere. That
2 disproportionatelyeffectsminoritiesgroupswithkids.
3 Thosekindofthings,zoningrestrictions,housing
4 programrestrictions,thosekindsofrulesarethe
5 Heartlandcases. Thankyou.
6 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,General.
7 GeneralKeller,youhavefourminutesremaining.
8 ORALARGUMENTOFMR.SCOTTA.KELLER
9 ONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER
10 MR.KELLER: Mr.ChiefJustice,toanswer
11 yourquestion,bothwouldopenupliabilityfor
12 disparateimpact. HeretheDepartmentcouldhavefaced
13 disparateimpactliabilityifitwasgoingtotaketax
14 creditsandsendthemtolowerincomeneighborhoodsor
15 moreaffluentneighborhoods. Andeven
16 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Well,youkeepsaying
17 that,butthat'snotwhathappenedhere. Theremedywas
18 nottotellyoutomoveyourdevelopmentfromonearea
19 toanother. Theremedyhereisitdidpreclude
20 developmentnexttolandfills,butitalsoincluded
21 otherothertinkeringwiththequalifications. But
22 you'regoingtostillneedpeoplewhowanttodo
23 MR.KELLER: Butintheremedyinthiscase
24 thedistrictcourt
25 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: whattheywanttodo.
AldersonReportingCompany
-
54
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 MR.KELLER: keptitandretained
2 jurisdictionforfiveyearssoevenifthedisparity's
3 notclosed
4 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Thathastogowithyour
5 attacksontheremedy. Thathasdoesn'thave
6 anythingtodowithwhatdisparateimpactasanapproach
7 setoutbyHUDdirectshouldbedone.
8 MR.KELLER: Andeachregulatedentityis
9 goingtohavetoexaminetheracialoutcomesoftheir
10 policiesineveryzoningdecisionmade
11 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: No.
12 MR.KELLER: ineveryraiseinrent
13 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Whattheydoiswhat
14 everyoneshoulddo. Isbeforetheysetupanypolicies,
15 thinkaboutwhatisthemostraceneutralpolicy.
16 That'saverydifferentthing. That,Ithink,everyone
17 isobligatedtodo.
18 MR.KELLER: Andthat'spreciselywhatthe
19 Department
20 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: It'sonlyiftheother
21 sideprovesthataqualificationhasanaraceeffect
22 that'snotnecessary,cantheywin.
23 MR.KELLER: AndheretheDepartmentengaged
24 inraceneutralpolicies.
25 JusticeAlito,toyourpointaboutSmithand
AldersonReportingCompany
-
55
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 theADA'sreasonablefactorsotherthanageexemptions,
2 therearethreethingsthatdistinguishthatfromthis
3 case. First,there'sanimportanttexturaldifference.
4 TheADA'sreasonablefactorotherthanageprovision
5 referredtoactionsotherwiseprohibited. AndtheCourt
6 inSmithinterpretedthatasrecognizingthedisparate
7 impactliabilitycouldlieundertheADA. IntheFair
8 HousingAct,wedon'thavethatlanguage. The
9 exemptionssaynothingintheFHAprohibitsorlimits.
10 Sothisistrulyasafeharbor.
11 Second,SmithalreadynotedthattheADA
12 usedadverselyeffect. Andthird,Smithdidn'tinvolve
13 raceandsonoconstitutionalavoidancecanandwould
14 haveappliedthere.
15 Andonconstitutionalavoidance,thereason
16 we'reheretodayisbecausetheTexasdepartmentdidnot
17 useracebaseddecisionmaking. Takeahypothetical
18 fromGruder. IftheUniversityofMichiganhadsaid,
19 theincomingclassmusthave30percentofitsincoming
20 classofacertainraceandwepreferthat
21 raceconsciousorraceneutralmeanswereusedtodo
22 that,butifthosearen'tavailable,racebasedmeans
23 mustbeused,thatwouldbesuspect. Attheveryleast
24 allweneedtoshowisaconstitutionaldoubtforthe
25 constitutionalavoidancecanontoapplyhereandthe
AldersonReportingCompany
-
56
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
1 remedysaidthattherewasone.
2 JUSTICESOTOMAYOR: Whatintheremedy
3 orderedherewasracebased? Whatremedysaidyouhave
4 totakein10,20,15percent?
5 MR.KELLER: Theparticularremedyhere
6 wasn'tracebased,buttheliabilitytobeginwithand
7 whetherthedisparityisgoingtocloseandwhetherthe
8 Departmentisgoingtoremainnotincompliancewiththe
9 FairHousingAct,isstillracebased.
10 Thankyou,Mr.ChiefJustice.
11 CHIEFJUSTICEROBERTS: Thankyou,Counsel.
12 Thecaseissubmitted.
13 (Whereupon,at11:21a.m.,thecaseinthe
14 aboveentitledmatterwassubmitted.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReviewOfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
57
A
a.m 1:16 3:2
56:13
able 52:25 53:1
aboveentitled
1:14 56:14
absolutely 12:23
14:14 20:23
22:25 23:17
50:8
accommodati...
17:14
account 6:11
12:24 30:8
acknowledged
9:21
acknowledgm...
16:16
act 3:12,19 4:13
4:14,14,18,19
4:20 5:5,18
6:12,15 7:1,5
7:23 8:22 9:7
11:17 14:2,4
14:21 15:8,15
15:19,21,22
16:22 17:13
19:2 21:21
25:18 28:12,13
30:23 32:10
36:2,3,11,19
36:21 37:21
38:5 45:18
46:7 47:15
49:4 52:4 55:8
56:9
acted 7:6
action 7:7 11:7
24:8
actions 3:15 5:6
9:5 11:11 55:5
active 4:25 5:9
6:5 9:6
actively 15:4
activity 30:8
acts 5:1,3 9:8
11:17
ADA 55:7,11
ADA's 55:1,4
Adam 7:4,5
add 39:23
added 7:14 38:3
38:6
Adderand 20:15
addiction 12:19
additional 5:2
19:16 34:20
address 22:25
ADEA 3:23 4:21
4:22 6:24 7:25
28:12
adjudicated
45:10
adjudications
46:5,24
admits 34:16
adopt 47:13
adopted 14:19
15:9 27:12
adopts 52:20,23
adverse 29:15
adversely 3:20
4:3,6 5:8,10,20
5:25 6:25 7:10
7:12 8:12,18
9:2,10,15
11:19,25 12:1
12:5,13 55:12
Affairs 1:5 3:5
44:11
affect 3:20 4:3,6
5:8,10,20,25
6:25 7:12 8:12
8:18 9:10,15
11:20,25 12:1
12:13 22:15
48:3,9 49:2
affirmative 24:7
affluent 39:14
40:8 42:1 43:7
50:19 53:15
afford 48:15
age 35:7 55:1,4
agency 4:9
39:22 41:11
ago 18:17
agree 7:9 20:2
agreed 13:25
Aid 28:13
AL 1:5
Alito 15:6,18
34:19 35:12
36:1,10,17
39:6 45:15
54:25
alleged 29:8
alternative 31:3
31:19
alternatives
22:10
ambiguous
18:17,19,21
28:15
amended 51:15
amendment
13:6,13 15:2
16:18 17:3
38:3
amendments
10:4,12 11:18
13:11 14:23,25
15:3,7,10
16:22 17:1
19:1 39:2,23
amicus 1:24
2:10 37:16
amount 49:16
analysis 14:9
15:9,12 42:7,8
44:1
answer 17:23
21:7,14,14,17
29:2 33:15
34:7 40:13,25
41:1,5 50:3
51:10,10,25
52:3,15 53:10
answering 19:4
answers 21:17
50:5
anyway 9:17
38:15 49:25
apart 46:25
apartment
45:14 52:24
appeals 13:14
13:20 18:22
21:6,9 34:15
37:8,10 38:5
38:11,15,16,25
51:19 52:19
APPEARAN...
1:17
appeared 8:10
12:14
appears 6:5
10:16
application
21:25 22:3
24:23 32:19
applications
32:16
applied 19:15,18
40:21 55:14
apply 3:25 13:22
16:18 41:17
55:25
applying 14:20
approach 54:6
approval 42:2
arbitrary 22:7
area 22:11,12
26:3,4 32:23
34:2 39:11,14
39:18,19 40:11
42:1,3,17 52:7
52:9 53:18
areas 13:15
16:18 22:2
25:17 26:8
38:15
argue 9:13 36:2
38:13
arguing 26:22
27:10
argument 1:15
2:2,5,8,12 3:3
3:8 7:13 9:18
9:18 10:14
15:7,17 17:21
17:22 18:16
25:11 26:18,23
27:14,15,16
28:10,19,19,20
34:24 35:13,14
37:14 53:8
arguments
17:25 19:22
arisen 21:15
artificial 16:4
22:7
asapplied 51:12
aside 34:2
asked 21:10
assume 51:24
assumed 11:22
Assuming 29:9
attacks 54:5
Austin 1:19
authority 29:6,7
29:17,20 51:13
51:16
authorized 38:5
available 26:2,4
26:8 43:15
46:7 55:22
avoid 30:7 47:10
avoidance 3:18
21:20 47:4,4,6
51:4 55:13,15
55:25
awarded 32:16
33:6
B
B 1:22 2:9 37:14
baby 50:10,11
back 16:2 18:15
21:25 24:8
30:1 31:10,12
33:13 41:1
backdrop 38:23
51:17
bad 39:9 42:15
AldersonReportingCompanyAldersonReportingCompany
-
58
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
42:20,20 bring 33:24 causes 41:25 circuits 11:5 community 1:4
ban 5:17 broader 11:3 42:2 14:8 3:5 32:17,20
based 4:5 17:14 brought 37:4 causing 29:21 circumstance 33:8 44:10,24
21:15 23:11 build 39:10,13 30:14 42:20 33:20 44:25
24:12 buildings 52:24 cert 45:20,24 circumstances compels 3:18
basic 28:20 builds 34:2 certain 5:19 11:11 14:1 21:20
basically 20:5 bunch 49:25 9:23 13:12 cited 10:19 complete 17:17
35:5 burden 47:25 15:12 27:5 34:20,22,24 29:2
basis 5:11,24,25 business 24:21 28:6 38:15 City 3:20 17:16 completely 7:24
18:15,16 22:7 31:20 44:3 55:20 Civil 15:21 23:10
26:12 45:13 businesses 48:20 certainly 27:6 claim 29:6 41:8 compliance 56:8
48:8 51:12 37:6 40:9,11 44:18 concede 9:11 Cbath 50:11 43:8 claims 3:13 concern 39:7,8
C 2:1 3:1 began 21:14,14 cetera 4:8 17:20 28:14 51:7 called 26:9behalf 1:19,20 challenge 44:11 clarify 10:25 concerned 26:7 canon 3:171:24 2:4,7,10 chance 17:23 class 23:20 45:16 38:22,25 39:1 2:14 3:9 25:12 change 19:11,14 55:19,20 concerns 20:12 55:2537:15 53:9 changed 14:16 classifications concerted 32:17
care 31:20 32:2 believe 5:16 14:18 23:12 32:20 33:8 carefully 22:513:5,19 18:18 changing 48:17 classified 47:24 concerting carrying 30:846:8 48:18 classifying 5:18 32:20 carveouts 38:8benefit 39:11 charged 4:9 8:23 concluded 39:25 case 3:4 10:2,16 48:1 39:22 clause 22:21 conclusion 10:19 15:3benefits 40:3,9 check 5:19 clear 11:5,9 24:23 52:2 17:16 19:15,24 best 18:17 36:24 checking 8:11 15:11 21:20 concurrence 6:3 22:3 23:15better 23:7 8:25 26:6 41:10 25:6 41:9 25:15,17,20 38:16,21 42:16 Chevron 39:2 46:25 confused 48:23 27:17 28:16,23 big 21:1 50:13 45:16,17 46:9 clearly 11:12 Congress 6:12 30:15,16,18 bit 8:19 19:8 46:23 47:1 37:19 6:20,25 9:6,21 34:2 38:10,21 black 27:3 51:21 close 56:7 10:25 11:8,21 40:18 42:24blighted 22:2,11 Chief 3:3,10 closed 54:3 11:22 12:14,24 43:1 44:22blood 52:22 25:7,9,13 clue 6:20 13:3,7,19,24 45:3,20,23,24 Bob 7:5 28:24 29:1,4,5 code 32:21 14:5,14,19 45:25 46:11,11 body 12:17 29:13 30:4,6 coincidence 15:2,5,15 16:7 47:5 49:12bonding 48:17 37:12,17 39:7 46:19 16:13,20 17:18 50:3,4 52:4,10 bonus 33:11 39:21 40:2,7 colleges 22:24 26:7 35:19,19 53:23 55:3books 16:4 40:15 41:2,16 24:4 36:6,8,11,25 56:12,13 Breyer 17:21 41:19,24 42:10 combine 35:23 38:18 39:23
cases 17:12 23:5 18:20 19:3,7 42:14,19 44:8 come 15:24 18:4 51:15 44:19 45:9,10 19:17 20:9,24 44:15,18,22 18:12 19:11 congressional 45:11 47:14,22 21:10 24:22 46:18 50:14 30:1 31:19 26:6 35:18 47:23 49:433:13 34:7,10 52:15,16 53:6 41:1 47:4 50:9 congressman's 52:11,12,18 49:11 50:3,7,9 53:10 56:10,11 comes 48:12 14:10 53:551:5 choice 33:12 common 7:3 connecting 51:4
category 6:1brief 10:18,20 chose 9:6 communities 1:8 conscious 31:6 cause 33:2211:16 14:12,21 chronology 46:1 3:6 32:13 consensus 21:9 caused 27:2546:10 circuit 18:22 50:17 consequence
AldersonReportingCompany
-
59
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
4:15,17 26:24 course 5:7 17:5 cure 29:8,10 51:13 30:3,25 31:2,8
30:7 47:22,23 34:13 39:22 30:22,22 department 1:3 discussing 37:3
48:6 43:9,12 curiae 1:24 2:10 1:23 3:4 44:10 disparate 3:24
consequences court 1:1,15 37:16 53:12 54:19,23 3:25 4:1,2,11
9:5 29:15 47:8 3:11 6:7,14,22 55:16 56:8 4:21 11:6 13:3 Dconsideration 8:8 10:14,24 depends 48:3 14:8,20 15:23
D 3:148:11 11:16,18 12:25 deprivation 8:25 16:3,17,24 D.C 1:11,23 considerations 13:8,13,19,20 deprive 5:20,20 17:2,3,7,12,19 Dallas 1:2049:9 14:25 15:3,25 8:11,12 9:1 18:1 22:4 Daniel 1:20 2:6 considering 15:1 16:6 17:17 describe 6:15 24:24 27:17,19 25:10,11,13,21 15:4 18:12 19:11,23 desegregation 27:22 28:7 25:25 26:23consistent 14:18 19:24 20:21 49:23 29:7,14 30:20 27:6,13 28:2 25:16 27:21 21:3 22:18 determined 4:10 34:22 35:6,8,9 28:17,20 29:4 33:25 24:18 25:14 develop 43:11 36:1,4 38:6,12 29:9,19 30:5 consists 16:12 28:10 30:21 developer 43:5 39:8,25 40:4 30:13,24 31:11 constitutional 33:9 34:6,9,20 44:10,16 41:21,22 42:5 31:21,24 32:4 3:18 21:15,20 37:18 38:11,16 developing 43:6,14 44:23 32:14 33:347:4,5 51:4 41:14 45:18 22:11 45:9,12 48:24 34:6,9,12 35:3 55:13,15,24,25 48:14,17 49:6 development 50:21 51:7,18 35:15 36:5,14 construction 51:11 52:19 22:2,16 44:13 51:20,24 52:5 36:2035:18,23 36:22 53:24 55:5 44:24 53:18,20 53:12,13 54:6
days 45:21construe 16:6,11 Court's 11:23 difference 21:2 55:6 46:17contemplated 34:12 24:10 55:3 disparateimp...
dealt 41:1415:8 courts 18:22 different 7:20 3:13 4:5 5:22 decaying 32:12context 25:2 21:4,6,9 34:14 8:16 27:10 8:9,13 11:10 decide 20:2128:11,12,12,13 34:15 37:8,10 47:9 50:16 11:21 14:9 39:9,17 50:10 37:9 40:17 38:4,14,24 54:16 15:9,12 19:14
decided 11:1847:7,9,9 48:14 51:19 52:19 difficult 39:9,21 19:24 21:22 21:3,4 continue 32:5 Cove 25:5 45:9 22:19 25:3
decision 10:22contracting cover 5:2 36:9 direct 54:7 28:4,7,14 30:7 15:24 54:1048:14 36:25 direction 36:23 34:4 35:16
decisionmaki... contractors coverage 36:19 directly 40:14 37:7,8,20,23 22:20,23 24:11 48:16,19 36:21 disability 17:15 37:24 38:8 55:17contribute 32:16 crazy 12:5 disagree 23:10 40:18 41:8,12
decisions 5:3contributing credit 32:11 disaster 18:15 44:18 46:6 13:14 45:1732:20 39:16 19:9 47:8,11
defend 49:17convert 52:21 credits 50:17 discriminate 6:7 disparately defending 41:5convince 19:22 53:14 discriminating 12:18,18 defense 49:13correct 31:20 crime 22:12 5:10 disparities 23:11 defenses 38:743:17 49:1 criteria 22:13 discrimination 24:13 deference 35:24counsel 25:9 24:19 31:6 3:17 6:9,14,19 disparity 27:2,9 46:9,24 47:2 37:12 56:11 33:11 11:17 26:24 27:11 33:22
degree 21:23count 12:20,21 criterion 40:21 27:2,4,4,9,18 40:19 42:6 demonstrate26:3,4 35:11 47:13 27:21 28:1 56:7 40:20counts 36:15 critical 35:12,13 37:1 disparity's 54:2
denials 5:440:3 Croson 48:14 discriminatory disproportion... denying 4:25couple 46:4 49:7 27:24,25 29:21 53:2
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
60
district 33:9 28:13 52:23 fair 3:12 4:14,19 form 12:10 18:5
41:14 53:24 emphasized excuse 35:7,11 5:5 6:11,15 7:1 formal 46:5
doing 8:2 12:24 11:19 49:7 9:7 11:16 14:2 forms 50:4
13:17 22:7 empirical 20:1 exemption 11:1 14:4,21 15:8 forward 17:20
26:25 29:25 employer 7:21 17:13,15 15:22 17:13 found 11:2,4,8
31:4 36:14 7:22 8:4 exemptions 18:2 19:2 24:18 33:9
DONALD 1:22 employment 12:21 13:21 21:21 25:18 34:15 43:5
2:9 37:14 6:18 14:19 17:17,18 30:22 32:9 46:6 51:20
doubt 24:5 enact 13:7,21 35:3,8,13,15 37:21 38:5 four 53:7
55:24 14:15 36:3 37:22,22 45:18 46:7 fourth 21:13
dropping 9:3 enacted 15:14 38:1,7,8 51:17 47:15 49:4 fully 21:17
drug 12:19 15:16 16:7,20 55:1,9 52:4 55:7 56:9 functional 25:3
due 35:24 48:7 36:2 38:18 exist 9:15 17:9 fairly 51:22 fund 40:10
dwelling 4:19 45:18 17:10 families 52:25 further 37:11
7:2,4 enacting 10:12 existence 37:23 far 18:3
enforce 20:13 expand 9:14 fashion 21:4 G
E enforcement 15:13 36:19 favor 19:4 G 3:1
E 2:1 3:1,1 35:21 expanded 36:3 favored 38:12 Gallagher 19:16
earlier 22:1 enforcing 39:24 expansion 14:4 Federal 20:16 45:20,23 46:11
economically engage 47:11 expansive 35:20 FHA 11:7 17:18 GEN 1:22 2:9
8:19 engaged 41:11 explain 22:10 55:9 general 1:18,22
Edmonds 17:16 54:23 47:6 filed 11:16 14:13 7:9 10:15
effect 8:17 14:15 ensure 22:5 explained 20:13 financial 48:18 11:15 14:13,17
19:21 20:1,4,6 entire 10:3 52:9 explicitly 17:3 find 7:16 16:23 15:6 26:21
27:21,24,25 entitled 46:8 expresses 33:1 49:7 34:23 37:13,17
33:21 42:20,21 entity 54:8 expressly 39:23 finding 4:4 6:7 38:17,20 39:20
49:23 52:23 equal 19:12 extend 9:17 41:12 47:8 40:6,13,16,24
54:21 55:12 20:11 22:20 extending 21:22 51:24 41:23 42:5,13
effects 3:14 8:22 equate 27:9 extent 31:3 finely 18:16 42:18,22 43:8
9:22,23 10:8 equivalent 25:4 extra 7:13 finish 41:1 51:3 43:12,18,21,25
10:10 13:12 erroneous 13:13 extremely 14:3 first 3:4,13 44:4,7,14,17
16:8 27:19,20 38:14 20:12 31:14 45:4,8 46:2,21
34:22 36:9 especially 11:9 F 42:7,24 43:22 48:5,10 49:1,3
37:1,5 53:2 ESQ 1:18,20 2:3 face 24:1 43:25 46:4,11 50:2,6,8 52:6
effectsbased 2:6,9,13 faced 53:12 49:17 55:3 53:6,7
3:16,21 8:20 established facility 48:4 five 54:2 generations 6:13
9:2 19:10 fact 9:21 12:25 flip 46:12 getting 24:3
effectschecking et 1:5 4:8 13:7 26:24 flux 11:15 48:23 52:11
5:21 everybody 48:23 27:2 29:10 focus 6:22 8:21 ghettos 6:16
efficiency 46:14 exact 8:3 30:17 31:2,11 focuses 5:5 8:17 26:9
either 8:4 15:8 exactly 14:7 35:4 9:7 Ginsburg 5:11
34:18 45:3 44:6 48:13 factor 35:7 55:4 follows 15:7 5:23 6:10,21
47:20 examine 54:9 factors 35:6 forbid 52:1 15:20 23:21,24
elephants 14:5 example 25:22 55:1 forecloses 39:4 30:17 32:8,25
eligible 48:20 32:4 47:18 factually 24:6 51:23 33:3 40:22
eliminate 38:14 exceptions 10:12 fails 43:15 foreseeable 41:1,4
Emergency excluding 27:5 failure 17:14 26:24 give 6:19 8:9
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
61
19:16 21:14,14 ground 49:17 housing 1:4 3:5 29:7,14,15 integrated 6:17
33:7 35:20 groups 53:2 3:12 4:14,16 30:20 34:22 integrating 6:16
40:7,10 50:4 Gruder 55:18 4:20 5:5 6:12 35:6,8,9 36:2,4 39:18
50:18,18,20 guess 46:3 6:15 7:1 9:7 38:6,12 39:8,9 integration 23:8
gives 51:11 guilty 43:5 11:16 12:1,12 39:17,25 40:4 39:14 40:9
giving 35:24 14:2,4,21 15:8 41:21,22 43:6 42:17 50:23
glaring 24:1 H 15:22 17:13 43:14 44:23 intend 15:15
go 17:20 19:19 hangs 9:20 19:2 21:21 45:9,12 48:24 36:8
19:23 21:25 happen 23:7 25:2,18 29:5,7 50:21,23 51:8 intended 36:25
23:20 27:22 happened 14:17 29:17,19 30:23 51:18,20,24 37:4
29:9 31:10,12 18:11 38:21 30:25 32:10 52:5 53:12,13 intent 22:5 28:6
33:13 41:25 53:17 37:21 38:5 54:6 55:7 28:23
48:24 54:4 happening 39:11,12,13,15 impacting 12:19 intentional 3:17
goal 6:12 19:20,20 40:8,11 42:1 implement 37:3 6:8 11:17
goals 31:5 happens 4:15 42:16,17 44:10 import 46:3,13 14:21 27:18,25
going 9:17 11:12 22:25 45:18 46:7 important 17:24 37:2
15:20 17:15 harbor 55:10 47:15 49:4,15 18:9,13 55:3 intentionally
18:15 20:13,16 hard 16:23 29:3 49:21 50:19 importantly 27:4
22:1,15 27:16 hazardous 32:6 52:4,21 53:3 3:19 interest 25:2,16
27:18 32:16,22 hear 3:3 20:9 55:8 56:9 impose 51:20 27:23 29:20,23
33:6 35:7 33:15 HUD 19:19 imposed 23:5 29:24
40:13 47:15,16 Heartland 44:19 20:13 35:24 24:17,17 47:25 interfere 20:16
47:20 49:5,15 45:10 47:14 41:18 45:19,22 49:5 interpret 51:16
49:16,20 52:25 49:3 52:11,12 46:5,23 50:9 imposes 24:24 interpretation
53:1,13,22 53:5 51:13,13,15,23 imposing 51:17 3:18 6:3 15:25
54:9 56:7,8 held 12:17 28:11 52:1 54:7 improperly 21:21 35:21
good 17:24 24:8 help 20:17 39:14 HUD's 37:20 12:18 36:25 37:21
24:16 32:23 helpful 18:14 38:3 39:4 41:5 include 28:14 39:5 41:5
39:9,12,15 20:5 hung 9:14 33:19 34:4 interpreted 4:4
40:15,25 41:3 helps 40:11 51:1 Huntington included 6:24 18:23 28:21
41:9 44:17 hide 14:5 15:1 36:4 53:20 55:6
50:22,24 high 23:19 hurdles 22:8 includes 16:22 interpreting
goodness 18:21 highincome hurt 49:20 27:6 4:10 39:24
government 39:19 hypothetical including 10:4 interrupted
20:12 42:23 higher 32:23 55:17 Inclusive 1:8 3:5 31:13
43:1 46:15 holdings 21:5 income 20:17 invitation 13:4
governmental holds 42:25 43:3 I 25:16 26:8 involve 55:12
30:8 holes 14:6 identical 10:14 32:23 39:11 involves 49:10
governments Holley 9:6 identify 22:9 incoming 55:19 IRS 32:21
48:15 Holly 45:24,24 impact 3:24,25 55:19 issue 11:3 15:1,3
grand 6:12 Honor 46:3 4:2,11,21 11:6 indicated 36:6 15:14 21:3
granted 45:20 Honor's 40:14 13:3 14:8,20 industrial 32:6 25:24,25 34:14
45:24 46:13 49:9 15:23 16:3,17 inhibit 22:1 46:16 47:10,16
great 49:23 honored 32:18 16:25 17:2,4,7 initially 15:14 issued 45:22,23
Griggs 3:23 4:4 hook 4:5 17:19 18:1 36:2 44:23
15:24 16:3 horribles 18:10 22:4 23:7 instances 51:6 J
34:13 house 50:20 24:24 27:20,22 integrate 23:1 Jackson 3:20
AldersonReportingCompany
-
OfficialSubjecttoFinalReview
62
January 1:12 38:18 39:6,7 14:24 15:18 largely 27:3 limiting 5:18
Jones 40:23 41:8 39:21 40:2,7 16:6,10 17:1 lasted 21:6 8:23 17:19
JR 1:22 2:9 40:15,22,25 17:11 18:18 Laughter 18:25 limits 55:9
37:14 41:2,4,16,19 19:1,6,12 20:8 lines 34:10
judge 40:23 41:8 41:24 42:10,14 20:11,23 21:8 law 10:3,4,5,10 linguistically
50:7 42:19 43:4,10 21:19 22:17 11:2,4,7,9,9,15 34:3
judges 50:7 43:14,20,23 23:2,9,17 12:17 16:12,12 litigated 52:18
judgment 40:1 44:2,6,8,15,18 24:10,25 53:7 16:14,21,22 litigation 30:19
judgments 44:21,22 45:5 53:8,10,23 17:25 18:8,13 little 8:19 12:4
38:14 45:6,15 46:18 54:1,8,12,18 19:8 20:4 16:4,19 19:8
jurisdiction 54:2 46:20 48:2,6,8 54:23 56:5 32:10,11,14 live 53:1
Justice 1:23 3:3 48:22 49:2,8 Keller's 34:24 33:1 34:2 living 6:17
3:10,22 4:7,12 49:11 50:3,7,9 Kennedy 44:21 38:23 long 46:23 48:11
4:15 5:7,11,12 50:14 51:5 45:5,6 49:8 lay 11:12 longer 34:1
5:16,23 6:10 52:6,15,16 kept 54:1 lead 25:3 look 10:2,3 16:2
6:21 7:8,9,17 53:6,10,16,25 kids 53:1,2 leads 19:15 16:14,19,21
7:18 8:5,15 9:9 54:4,11,13,20 kill 10:2 leave 11:2 19:20 26:2
9:25 10:1,11 54:25 56:2,10 kind 28:6 33:11 leaving 11:7 30:11,13,14
10:18,21,23 56:11 47:15 48:11,13 legacy 6:18 33:17 36:7,22
11:4,14,24 justification 52:14 53:3 legal 25:24,25 41:20 42:19
12:4,10,16 19:25,25 42:8 kinds 49:4,6,8 legally 34:4 looked 13:8
13:1,5,10,16 42:9,15,24,25 52:17 53:4 legislating 13:25 looking 34:5
13:18 14:7,16 43:2,2 51:12 knew 15:23 37:8 legislation 9:22 looser 47:21
15:6,18,20 justified 33:23 know 5:12 7:16 legislature 24:1 lose 20:2 49:24
16:9,11 17:5,6 45:13 49:25 9:23 22:15 24:8 lot 35:17 52:7
17:21 18:20 justifies 27:23 26:19 40:24 legitimate 24:21 low 25:16 26:8
19:3,7,17 20:9 29:24 42:3,18 46:15 31:20 32:23 39:11
20:18,20,21,23 justify 41:12 50:11,16 52:7 lends 38:1 lowincome
20:24 21:1,10 47:18 known 11:22 let's 21:25 27:8 39:18 40:8,11
21:24 22:17,22 knows 11:8 27:8 43:16 42:1,3,17
23:3,9,14,15 K 14:14 liability 4:5 5:22 50:20,25
23:17,18,21,23 Kagan 7:8,17,18 8:9,14 10:12 lower 20:17 21:3
23:24 24:14,15 8:5,15 11:4,14 L 10:13 11:21 24:17
24: