United States: Supreme Court Rules Municipalities Have Standing To Sue Under The FHA, But Raises The Bar On Showing Proximate Cause

On May 2, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that a municipality has standing to sue for injuries under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") for discriminatory lending. However, the Court declined to decide whether the municipality's injury was proximately caused by the alleged FHA violation.

The Proceedings in the Southern District Court of Florida and Eleventh Circuit

The City of Miami, Florida, (Miami) filed complaints in the Southern District of Florida (District Court) against two national banks (Banks) alleging violations of the FHA. Miami alleged that the Banks engaged in discriminatory lending by providing minorities with home loans containing less favorable terms than similarly situated nonminority borrowers. Miami also claimed that the Banks failed to extend fair refinancing and loan modification opportunities to minorities. Miami claimed that as result of these alleged FHA violations, minorities were unable to stay current on their mortgages, resulting in increased foreclosures in minority communities. As a result of these foreclosures, property values in the minority communities supposedly decreased, which affected the amount of property taxes Miami claimed that it could collect. Miami also alleged that the foreclosures resulted in blight within these communities, resulting in increased expenditures of municipal services, such as police and fire departments in those communities.

The District Court dismissed Miami's complaints, finding that Miami's injuries were purely economic and not discriminatory and therefore fell outside the zone of interests that the FHA was intended to protect. The District Court also held that Miami failed to show how its injuries were proximately caused by the Banks' lending practices.

Miami appealed the District Court's decision to the Eleventh Circuit which held that Miami's injuries fell within the zone of interests contemplated by the FHA and that Miami adequately alleged its injuries were proximately caused by the Banks' alleged lending practices. In finding that Miami sufficiently pled its alleged injuries were proximately caused by the Banks in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the Eleventh Circuit focused solely on whether Miami's injuries were a foreseeable result of predatory lending.

The United States Supreme Court's Majority Opinion

The Supreme Court was faced with two questions: (1) whether Miami had adequately alleged standing to bring an FHA claim and (2) whether Miami had adequately alleged that the alleged lending misconduct proximately caused Miami to lose property-tax revenue and spend more on municipal services.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer, conducted its analysis in two parts. First: (1) in a 5-3 vote, the Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit that Miami had standing to sue under the FHA. In an outcome joined by the entire Court, it decided that alleging "foreseeability alone" is not enough to meet the FHA's proximate cause requirement. The Supreme Court declined to apply its proximate cause formulation to Miami's allegations. Instead, the Court tasked the Eleventh Circuit with determining whether Miami's alleged injuries were proximately caused by the Banks' actions.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that Miami's injuries were within the zone of interests the FHA protects. The Supreme Court focused on the definition of "aggrieved person" as defined by the FHA. Under the FHA, an "aggrieved person" has standing to bring an action. The Supreme Court, citing its previous ruling on the definition of "aggrieved persons" under the prior version of the FHA, noted that "aggrieved person" is broadly defined to include any person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice or believes that such injury will occur. Adopting the same broad definition of aggrieved persons under the amended FHA, the Court noted that Congress failed to limit the Court's broad definition of "aggrieved persons" when it amended the FHA and, therefore, acquiesced to the Court's definition of the term. The Court further compared Miami's claims to those made by a municipality inGladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979) . In Gladstone, the Court ruled that the village had standing to sue under the FHA based on alleged injuries due to reduced integration in the community, which resulted in lower tax revenues. The Court noted that Miami's injuries, reduced property taxes and increases in expenditures for municipal services, were sufficient injuries contemplated by the broad definition of "aggrieved persons."

In holding foreseeability alone is insufficient to show proximate cause, the Court cited the well-established common law principle that any injury must be proximately caused by the alleged conduct. The Court noted that although it may be foreseeable that a municipality might be injured by the Banks' alleged practices, the FHA requires a direct relationship between the injury and the alleged violative conduct. Applying common law principles, the Court noted that the injury suffered by Miami must occur within the "first step" of the alleged act. The Court also noted that due to the nature of the housing market and its economic and social implications, nothing in the FHA suggests that Congress intended to allow a suit for injuries merely tangentially related to an alleged violation of the FHA and doing so would result in "massive and complex damages litigation."

The Court, however, declined to dictate the boundaries of proximate cause under the FHA or to apply its ruling to the allegations of the complaints. Instead, the Court vacated the judgments below and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for that court to apply the new proximate cause formulation.

The Concurrence and Dissent By Justice Thomas

In his Opinion, Justice Thomas stated that he would have held that (1) Miami's injuries fell outside of the FHA's zone of interests and, therefore, Miami lacked standing to bring suit; and (2) that Miami's injuries were too remote to satisfy the FHA' proximate cause requirement. However, Justice Thomas concurred with the majority's decision that foreseeability alone is insufficient to show proximate cause.

In addressing Miami's standing, Justice Thomas distinguished Gladstone and the other FHA cases upon which the majority opinion relied on the basis that those cases "at least arguably" involved discriminatory injuries falling within the zone of interests. Justice Thomas described the "quintessential 'aggrieved person'" as "a prospective home buyer or lessee discriminated against during the home-buying or leasing process." Justice Thomas noted that Supreme Court precedent extended "aggrieved persons" status to those who live in a segregated neighborhood, resulting from discriminatory housing practices, and that these cases illustrate the outer limits of protected interests under the FHA. He also noted that Miami's interests are purely economic, unlike those claimed in Gladstone, which included both economic injury and changes to the "racial composition" of the community resulting from discriminatory practices. Justice Thomas stated that the FHA was not intended to redress purely economic injuries.

In addressing Miami's lack of proximate cause, Justice Thomas wrote that the causal links between Miami's injuries and the Banks' alleged violations were "exceedingly attenuated," observing that there was a lengthy and "attenuated chain of causation" between the Banks' alleged actions and Miami's injury. Pointedly, Justice Thomas predicted the "Court of Appeals will not need to look far to discern other independent events that might well have caused the [Miami's] injuries."

Practical Impact

The Supreme Court's decision establishes a potentially expansive zone of interests for FHA claims brought by municipalities, thereby recognizing standing for plaintiffs situated similarly to Miami, assuming that they can allege the requisite proximate causation. This portion of the opinion may encourage municipalities to bring claims against mortgage lenders and servicers under the Act.

The Supreme Court's holding that foreseeability alone is insufficient to allege proximate cause raises the bar for alleging proximate cause but does not fully clarify what is required in the FHA claim context. However, Justice Thomas' delineation of the many causal links between the Banks' alleged actions and Miami's injuries shows why it will likely be difficult for Miami and other municipalities to allege proximate cause in attempting to recover lost property taxes and other purely economic damages.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions