The Fair Housing Act, enacted on April 11, 1968, is a landmark federal law aimed at removing discrimination in real estate. It was developed to promote equal access to real estate chances for all individuals, especially marginalized groups, and to resolve historic injustices that contributed to domestic partition. Initially focused on prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin, the Act has actually given that broadened to consist of protections against discrimination based on sex, special needs, and familial status.

The legislation emerged in the context of civil rights advocacy and was catalyzed by considerable events, including the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. The Act restricts various inequitable practices in real estate, consisting of in sales, rental contracts, and financing, and empowers individuals to challenge discriminatory policies even if intent is not evident. Enforcement of the Fair Real estate Act is managed by the Department of Real Estate and Urban Development (HUD), which resolves grievances and can impose charges for offenses.

Despite its intents, critiques of the Act highlight ongoing challenges, such as the lack of budget-friendly real estate and systemic barriers that continue the real estate market. Overall, the Fair Real estate Act represents a crucial effort to cultivate inclusive communities and ensure fair real estate access throughout the United States.

Related Topics

Civil Liberty Act of 1866
Federal Real Estate Administration
John F. Kennedy
Fourteenth Amendment (Supreme Court analyses).
Reitman v. Mulkey.
Lyndon B. Johnson.
Robert C. Weaver.
Walter Mondale.
Reitman v. Mulkey.
Martin Luther King, Jr
. Civil Liberty Act of 1968.
Redlining.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company

On this Page

Johnson's Efforts.

Enforcement.

Bibliography.


Subject Terms

Fair Real Estate Act of 1968 (U.S.).

Real estate discrimination laws.

United States. Fair Real Estate Amendments Act of 1988.

United States.


Fair Real Estate Act

SIGNIFICANCE: The Fair Real Estate Act, which ended up being law on April 11, 1968, restricts discrimination in real estate, intending to assist break racial enclaves in property neighborhoods and promote upward mobility for marginalized individuals.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 supplied that all people ought to have the same rights "to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal residential or commercial property," but the law was never ever implemented. Instead, such federal agencies as the Farmers Home Administration, the Federal Real Estate Administration, and the Veterans Administration financially supported segregated real estate until 1962, when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11063 to stop the practice.

California passed a general nondiscrimination law in 1959 and an explicit fair real estate law in 1963. In 1964, voters enacted Proposition 14, an effort to repeal the 1963 statute and the applicability of the 1959 law to real estate. When a proprietor in Santa Ana refused to rent to a Black American in 1963, the latter sued, hence challenging Proposition 14. The California Supreme Court, which heard the case in 1966, ruled that Proposition 14 was contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution since it was not neutral on the matter of real estate discrimination; instead, based upon the context in which it was adopted, Proposition 14 served to legitimate and promote discrimination. On appeal, the US Supreme Court let the California Supreme Court choice stand in Reitman v. Mulkey (1967 ).

Johnson's Efforts

President Lyndon B. Johnson had intended to include real estate discrimination as an arrangement in the comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964, however he demurred when southern senators threatened to block the election of Robert Weaver as the very first Black cabinet appointee. After 1964, southern members of Congress were adamantly opposed to any growth of civil liberties. Although Johnson prompted passage of a federal law versus real estate discrimination in requests to Congress in 1966 and 1967, there was no reference of the concept throughout his State of the Union address in 1968. Liberal members of Congress pushed the problem regardless, and southern senators responded by threatening a filibuster. This hazard emboldened Senators Edward W. Brooke and Walter F. Mondale, a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat, respectively, to cosponsor reasonable real estate legislation, however they needed the support of conservative midwestern Republicans to break a filibuster. Illinois Republican senator Everett Dirksen set up a compromise where real estate discrimination would be declared unlawful, but federal enforcement power would be minimal.

In the wake of Reitman v. Mulkey; the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968; and subsequent urban riots, Congress developed reasonable real estate as a nationwide concern on April 10 by adopting Titles VIII and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Real Estate Act or Open Real Estate Act. Signed by Johnson on the following day, the law originally forbade discrimination in real estate on the basis of race, color, religious beliefs, or national origin. In 1974, a modification expanded the protection to consist of sex (gender) discrimination; in 1988, the law was encompassed secure persons with specials needs and families with children younger than eighteen years of age.

Title VIII restricts discrimination in the sale or leasing of dwellings, in the funding of real estate, in marketing, in the usage of a several listing service, and in practices that "otherwise make unavailable or deny" real estate, a phrase that some courts have actually translated to forbid exclusionary zoning, mortgage redlining, and racial steering. Blockbusting, the practice of inducing a White homeowner to sell to a marginalized buyer to terrify others on the block to sell their homes at a loss, is likewise forbidden. It is not necessary to show intent to prove discrimination; policies, practices, and treatments that have the result of excluding marginalized individuals, people with disabilities, and children are unlawful, unless otherwise considered reasonable. Title VIII, as changed in 1988, covers individuals who think that they are adversely affected by an inequitable policy, practice, or treatment, even before they incur damages.

The law uses to about 80 percent of all real estate in the United States. One exception to the statute is a single-family home sold or rented without the use of a broker and without inequitable advertising, when the owner owns no more than three such houses and offers just one home in a two-year period. Neither does the statute use to a four-unit home if the owner lives in among the units, the so-called Mrs.-Murphy's- rooming-house exception. Dwellings owned by private clubs or spiritual companies that lease to their own members on a noncommercial basis are also exempt.

Enforcement

Enforcement of the statute was delegated the secretary of the Department of Real Estate and Urban Development (HUD). Complaints initially had to be submitted within 180 days of the offending act, however in 1988, this period was amended to one year. By the 2020s, HUD had actually approximated that millions of instances of real estate discrimination took place each year; while many went unreported, the National Fair Real estate Alliance continued to launch the total number, generally several thousands, of protests yearly. The US attorney general of the United States can bring a civil match against a flagrant lawbreaker of the law.

According to the law, HUD immediately refers complaints to regional firms that administer "considerably equivalent" reasonable real estate laws. HUD can act if the regional firms fail to do so, however initially was expected just to utilize conference, conciliation, and persuasion to produce voluntary compliance. The Fair Real Estate Amendments Act of 1988 licensed an administrative law tribunal to hear cases that can not be settled by persuasion. The administrative law judges have the power to release cease-and-desist orders to angering celebrations. HUD has actually used "testers" to show discrimination. That testers have standing to sue was developed by the US Supreme Court in Havens v. Coleman (1982 ). Under the administrative law procedure, charges are released according to very first offense and increase for additional offenses thereafter. Attorneys' fees and court expenses can be recuperated by the prevailing celebration.

Title IX of the law restricts intimidation or tried injury of anyone submitting a real estate discrimination grievance. If a plaintiff is in fact injured, the charge can increase and/or include a certain number of years of imprisonment. If a plaintiff is eliminated, the charge can be life imprisonment.

Under the laws of some states, a complainant filing with a state firm must waive the right to pursue a remedy under federal law. In 1965, a couple sought to acquire a home in a St. Louis suburban real estate development, only to be told by the real estate agent that the home was not available since among the spouses was Black. Invoking the Civil Liberty Act of 1866, the couple took legal action against the real estate designer, and the case went to the Supreme Court. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company (1968 ), the Court chose that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did permit a remedy against real estate discrimination by private parties.

Many experts have actually argued, nevertheless, that the result of the 1968 Fair Real Estate Act has been very little. Without a bigger supply of budget-friendly real estate, lots of Black Americans, in particular, have nowhere to transfer to enjoy integrated real estate. Federal subsidies for inexpensive real estate, under such legislation as the Real estate and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the Real Estate and Community Development Act of 1974, have actually decreased substantially given that the 1980s.

Bibliography

" The Fair Real Estate Act. " Civil Rights Division, US Department of Justice, 22 June 2023, www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1. Accessed 14 Nov. 2024.

Kushner, James A. Fair Housing: Discrimination in Real Estate, Community Development, and Revitalization. McGraw, 1983.

Metcalf, George R. Fair Housing Matures. Greenwood, 1988.

Prakash, Swati. "Racial Dimensions of Residential Or Commercial Property Value Protection under the Fair Housing Act." California Law Review, vol. 101, no. 5, 2013, pp. 1437-97.

Schneider, Valerie. "In Defense of Disparate Impact: Urban Redevelopment and the Supreme Court's Recent Interest in the Fair Housing Act." Missouri Law Review, vol. 79, no. 3, 2014, pp. 539+.

Schwemm, Robert G., editor. The Fair Housing Act after Twenty Years. Yale Law School, 1989.