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, Justice 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, Justice 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 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 on Monday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Congress had meant
to include cities among the “aggrieved” persons who may sue under the housing law.
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.
Supreme Court Rules Miami Can Sue for Predatory Lending -
By ADAM LIPTAKMAY 1, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Miami can sue two banks for predatory lending under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
