October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1120
Should the Fair Housing Act use standard agency rules for liability?
The dispute centers on whether standard corporate agency rules determine liability under the Fair Housing Act.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Benedon proposed a bright line rule for liability.
He argued that standard agency rules should apply.
Mr. Schwemm addressed the veil-piercing issue.
He disagreed with the how the case got here description.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 35-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks how courts should assign liability for housing discrimination. One side wants standard agency rules to apply. The other side argues for unique Fair Housing Act criteria.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 35-37
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to apply standard agency rules to determine liability.
the opposing side wants the Court to apply unique Fair Housing Act criteria for liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
What each side says
Mr. Benedon argues that established corporate and agency rules should govern vicarious liability.
Mr. Schwemm argues that the how the case got here involves a motion to dismiss.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked about the how the case got here of the case.
Justice Stevens asked about the allegations of sole ownership and corporate roles.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 35-37
Why it matters
This case defines how courts assign blame for housing discrimination. It sets the standard for holding companies liable for employee actions. The outcome shapes future housing law enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 35-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-33 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-33
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.