Make us your home page

U.S. Supreme Court rules Miami can sue for predatory lending

The US Supreme Court can be seen from the U.S. Capitol dome in Washington, D.C. [Olivier Douliery | Abaca Press via TNS]

The US Supreme Court can be seen from the U.S. Capitol dome in Washington, D.C. [Olivier Douliery | Abaca Press via TNS]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Miami can sue two banks for predatory lending under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The case arose from the 2008 financial crisis. Miami sued Bank of America and Wells Fargo, saying that their discriminatory mortgage lending practices had led to a disproportionate number of defaults by minority homebuyers and, in turn, to financial harm to the city.

Even as the majority of justices ruled that Miami was entitled to sue under the housing law, the court declined to decide whether the city had asserted a direct enough connection between the banks' actions and the harm it asserted. The court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in Atlanta for further exploration of that question.

When the case was argued in the Supreme Court in November, it seemed headed for a 4-4 tie. But the vote on the question of whether Miami could sue under the law was 5-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's four-member liberal bloc to form a majority.

Miami said the banks had intentionally and disproportionately issued risky mortgages on unfavorable terms to black and Hispanic borrowers. That led, the city said, to segregation and foreclosures, hurting its property tax base and requiring it to provide additional municipal services.

A trial court dismissed the suits in 2014, saying the city had not demonstrated that its claims were covered by the housing law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, reversed those rulings last year, allowing the cases to proceed. The appeals court said it was enough for the city to contend that it had "suffered an economic injury resulting from a racially discriminatory housing policy."

Writing for the majority Monday, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress had meant to include cities among the "aggrieved persons" who may sue under the housing law. He said a 1979 Supreme Court decision, Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, supported the ruling.

In that case, he said, a village had been allowed to sue on the theory that it had "lost tax revenue and had the racial balance of its community undermined by racial-steering practices." In the Miami case, Breyer wrote, the city had similarly asserted that the banks' actions had "reduced property values, diminishing the city's property-tax revenue and increasing demand for municipal services."

In a second part of his opinion, Breyer wrote that the appeals court had used too lax a standard in assessing the connection between the banks' conduct and the city's asserted injuries. The appeals court had ruled that injuries had only to be foreseeable, but Breyer said that was too attenuated.

"The housing market is interconnected with economic and social life," Breyer wrote, and violations of the housing law always have ripples. "Nothing in the statute suggests that Congress intended to provide a remedy wherever those ripples travel."

Instead, he said, there must be a direct relationship between the challenged conduct and the asserted injury. He left it up the appeals court to re-examine that question.

In addition to Roberts, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority decision.

In a partial dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said there was nothing in the housing law to suggest that "Congress was concerned about decreased property values, foreclosures and urban blight, much less about strains on municipal budgets that might follow."

When the case was argued, some justices worried that a ruling for Miami would allow all sorts of people and entities to sue for indirect harm from discriminatory practices. Kagan asked about restaurants and dry cleaners, Sotomayor about corner grocers and Breyer about publishers.

The majority did not directly address whether those kinds of suits were allowed under the law. Thomas welcomed that aspect of the ruling, saying "it should not be read to authorize suits by local businesses alleging the same injuries that Miami alleges here."

Thomas said the city should also lose on the question of causation.

"Miami's asserted injuries are too remote from the injurious conduct it has alleged," he wrote.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined the partial dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision.

The court's decision in the two consolidated cases, Bank of America v. Miami, No. 15-1111, and Wells Fargo v. Miami, No. 15-1112, was limited. But it nonetheless meant that civil rights groups had for a second time in two years avoided a complete loss in a Fair Housing Act case by a narrow margin.

In 2015, in a 5-4 decision, the court allowed plaintiffs in Fair Housing Act cases to use a legal theory that civil rights groups had said was a crucial tool to fight discrimination. The majority ruled that plaintiffs could use statistical evidence to prove that the challenged practice had produced a "disparate impact."

U.S. Supreme Court rules Miami can sue for predatory lending 05/01/17 [Last modified: Monday, May 1, 2017 3:46pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, New York Times.

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Carrollwood fitness center employs scientific protocol to help clients


    In 2005, Al Roach and Virginia Phillips, husband and wife, opened 20 Minutes to Fitness in Lakewood Ranch, and last month they opened the doors to their new location in Carrollwood.

    Preston Fisher, a personal fitness coach at 20 Minutes To Fitness, stands with an iPad while general manager/owner Angela Begin conducts an equipment demonstration. The iPad is used to track each client's information and progress. I also included one shot of just the equipment. The center recently opened in Carrollwood. Photo by Danielle Hauser.
  2. Olive Tree branches out to Wesley Chapel


    WESLEY CHAPEL — When it came time to open a second location of The Olive Tree, owners John and Donna Woelfel, decided that Wesley Chapel was the perfect place.

    The Olive Tree expands its offerings of "ultra premium?€ extra virgin olive oils (EVOO) to a second location in Wesley Chapel. Photo by Danielle Hauser.
  3. Massachusetts firm buys Tampa's Element apartment tower

    Real Estate

    TAMPA — Downtown Tampa's Element apartment tower sold this week to a Massachusetts-based real estate investment company that plans to upgrade the skyscraper's amenities and operate it long-term as a rental community.

    The Element apartment high-rise at 808 N Franklin St. in downtown Tampa has been sold to a Northland Investment Corp., a Massachusetts-based real estate investment company. JIM DAMASKE  |  Times
  4. New York town approves Legoland proposal


    GOSHEN, N.Y. — New York is one step closer to a Lego dreamland. Goshen, a small town about fifty miles northwest of the Big Apple, has approved the site plan for a $500 million Legoland amusement park.

    A small New York town, Goshen approved the site plan for a $500 million Legoland amusement park. Legoland Florida is in Winter Haven. [Times file  photo]
  5. Jordan Park to get $20 million makeover and new senior housing

    Real Estate


    Times Staff Writer

    ST. PETERSBURG —The St. Petersburg Housing Authority, which bought back the troubled Jordan Park public housing complex this year, plans to spend about $20 million to improve the 237-unit property and construct a new three-story building for …

    Jordan Park, the historic public housing complex, is back in the hands of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority. The agency is working to improve the 237-unit complex. But the latest plan to build a new three-story building for seniors will mean 31 families have to find new homes. [LARA CERRI   |   Tampa Bay Times]