October Term 2014 · Docket 13-1371

Does the Fair Housing Act ban policies with unequal racial effects?

Texas argues the law targets only intent. Inclusive Communities argues it bans unequal outcomes.

Official caption
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Texas argues the Fair Housing Act requires proof of intent.

    Inclusive Communities argues the law bans policies with unequal effects.

    Justice Kagan questioned the statutory language regarding adverse effects.

    Justice Ginsburg asked about the congressional goal of ending discrimination.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on the Fair Housing Act. Texas claims the statute requires proof of intent. Inclusive Communities claims the statute covers disparate impact.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 21, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Texas wants the Court to limit the law to intentional discrimination.

Inclusive Communities wants the Court to uphold liability for unequal effects.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Texas argues the statutory text lacks effects-based language.

Inclusive Communities argues the exemptions presuppose disparate impact liability.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if a specific point appeared in the brief.

Justice Kagan questioned the distinction between statutory phrasing and legal effect.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal fair housing protections. It determines whether policies with unequal racial outcomes violate the law. The outcome shapes housing policy nationwide.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON