The City of Miami alleged that Bank of America had

targeted minority borrowers for high-risk loans and

Background refused to extend credit equal to that of white borrowers,
violating the Fair Housing Act.
City claimed increase in foreclosures due to predatory
lending policies led to decline of neighborhoods
throughout city.

LEGL 7010 Sought damages for added costs and policing.

Kate Rodman Trickle-down approach should Miami win: Banks would
David Russell
Vibhor Rampal be liable to any and all neighborhoods in decline.
Line from loan to deficit long - too many other factors in
play to accurately make correlation.
Is a city an aggrieved person?
 The Fair Housing Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
Amendment of dismissal of the unjust
1988: Allowing District court enrichment claim but reversed
plaintiffs attorneys dismisses case and remanded the case for further
to recover for discriminatory proceedings as to the FHA claims.
attorneys fees. mortgage Case Decided.
practices.

4.11. 68 9.13. 88 12.13.13 7.9.14 9.1.15 11.8.16 5.1.17 6.28.17

Miami brought FHA lawsuit

Civil Rights Act of
1968, aka Fair Housing
Act.
against Bank of America,
Case argued. Case granted.
Countrywide Financial
Corporation, Countrywide
Bank - collectively, Bank of
America

Question I
By limiting suit to aggrieved person[s], did
Congress require that an FHA plaintiff plead
more than just Article III injury-in-fact?
The requirement of FHA is that the
complainant be an "aggrieved person,"
which the FHA (in Section 3602) defines
as someone who "(1) claims to have
been injured by a discriminatory housing
practice; or (2) believes that such person
will be injured by a discriminatory
housing practice that is about to occur
The key to file a suit under the FHA is
that the plaintiff must have direct
injury-in-fact
Injury-in-fact here should be actual,
concrete and directly link with the
complaint

BoA cites precedents with rulings in
Question II
The FHA requires plaintiffs to plead proximate
cause. Does proximate cause require more than
just the possibility that a defendant could have
foreseen that the remote plaintiff might
ultimately lose money through some theoretical
chain of contingencies?
The housing market is complex and the
Bank of America argued that FHA
requires a direct foreseeable link
between violation and injury.
Holmes v. SIPC (Securities Investor
Protection Corp) & Lexmark Intl, Inc. v.
Static Control Components, Inc. to
argue there is no tie between lending
practices and harm to the municipality.
City has not successfully proven any
direct cause as is a requirement by the
FHA.
Question III
Is Miami an aggrieved person under the FHA?
The FHA allows any aggrieved person
to file a suit and seek damages against
discriminatory housing practice ,
Association of Data Processing Service
Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S.
150, 153 (1970)
The district court have dismissed the City
of Miamis appeal citing the claim lies
outside the zone of interest Lexmark Intl,
Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
The bank further argues that chain of
events mentioned by the City of Miami is
more extensive, in-direct and hence
inadmissible under the current standing
of the FHA
 I. Miamis claims fall far outside the FHAs
zone of interests.
II. Miami did not adequately allege that
its injuries were proximately caused
by Bank Of America
III. FHA, already, authorizes government
actors, public, private parties to sue for
FHA violations. Thus, it's unnecesary for
Respondents
Key Arguments cities to sue under the same act as it will
only benefit the municipalities and not
intended victims, mocking FHA
IV. Further, denying credit to minorities
goes against the Equal Credit act ECOA,
15 USC 1691
V. Setting up a precedents in the case
would bulk up identical suits and will
severely strain the judicial system
 [N]othing in the text of the FHA
suggests that Congress was
concerned about decreased
property values, foreclosures and
urban blight, much less about
strains on municipal budgets that
might follow
Justices Thomas, Kennedy & Alito
Quotes
[T]he majority opinion leaves little
doubt that neither Miami nor any
similarly situated plaintiff can
satisfy the rigorous standard for
Judges & Decisions
proximate cause that the court
adopts and leaves to the court of
appeals to apply.
I do not see how you can say Justice Thomas
your loss of property tax is a
direct injury
Justice Roberts
Concurring: Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito.