The Fair Housing Act, enacted on April 11, 1968, is a landmark federal law intended at getting rid of discrimination in real estate. It was designed to promote equivalent access to real estate opportunities for all people, particularly marginalized groups, and to address historical oppressions that added to domestic partition. Initially concentrated on prohibiting discrimination based upon race, color, faith, and nationwide origin, the Act has because broadened to consist of protections against discrimination based upon sex, special needs, and familial status.

The legislation emerged in the context of civil liberties advocacy and was catalyzed by considerable occasions, consisting of the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. The Act forbids various inequitable practices in real estate, consisting of in sales, rental arrangements, and financing, and empowers people to challenge discriminatory policies even if intent is not evident. Enforcement of the Fair Real estate Act is supervised by the Department of Real Estate and Urban Development (HUD), which attends to grievances and can enforce charges for infractions.

Despite its objectives, reviews of the Act emphasize ongoing obstacles, such as the absence of cost effective real estate and systemic barriers that persist in the real estate market. Overall, the Fair Real estate Act represents a critical effort to promote inclusive communities and guarantee fair real estate access across the United States.

Related Topics

Civil Rights 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 Rights 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 became law on April 11, 1968, prohibits discrimination in real estate, aiming to help break racial enclaves in domestic communities and promote status seeking for marginalized individuals.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 offered that all people should have the exact same rights "to acquire, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey genuine and individual residential or commercial property," but the law was never implemented. Instead, such federal firms as the Farmers Home Administration, the Federal Real Estate Administration, and the Veterans Administration economically supported segregated real estate up until 1962, when President John F. Kennedy provided Executive Order 11063 to stop the practice.

California passed a general nondiscrimination law in 1959 and a specific fair real estate law in 1963. In 1964, voters enacted Proposition 14, an initiative to repeal the 1963 statute and the applicability of the 1959 law to real estate. When a property manager in Santa Ana refused to rent to a Black American in 1963, the latter taken legal action against, 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 embraced, Proposition 14 served to legitimate and promote discrimination. On appeal, the US Supreme Court let the California Supreme Court decision stand in Reitman v. Mulkey (1967 ).

Johnson's Efforts

President Lyndon B. Johnson had wished to include real estate discrimination as an arrangement in the detailed Civil liberty Act of 1964, however he demurred when southern senators threatened to obstruct the election of Robert Weaver as the first Black cabinet appointee. After 1964, southern members of Congress were adamantly opposed to any expansion of civil liberties. Although Johnson advised passage of a federal law against real estate discrimination in demands to Congress in 1966 and 1967, there was no mention of the concept during his State of the Union address in 1968. Liberal members of Congress pressed the problem regardless, and southern senators responded by threatening a filibuster. This hazard pushed Senators Edward W. Brooke and Walter F. Mondale, a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat, respectively, to cosponsor fair real estate legislation, however they required the assistance of conservative midwestern Republicans to break a filibuster. Illinois Republican senator Everett Dirksen arranged a compromise whereby real estate discrimination would be declared unlawful, however 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 established fair real estate as a national priority 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 restricted discrimination in real estate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In 1974, an amendment broadened the protection to consist of sex (gender) discrimination; in 1988, the law was encompassed secure persons with impairments and families with kids younger than eighteen years of age.

Title VIII forbids discrimination in the sale or leasing of residences, in the financing of real estate, in advertising, in the usage of a several listing service, and in practices that "otherwise make not available or deny" real estate, a phrase that some courts have actually translated to ban exclusionary zoning, mortgage redlining, and racial steering. Blockbusting, the practice of inducing a White house owner to sell to a marginalized purchaser to frighten others on the block to sell their homes at a loss, is likewise forbidden. It is not essential to show intent to prove discrimination; policies, practices, and procedures that have the impact of excluding marginalized people, individuals with specials needs, and children are illegal, unless otherwise considered affordable. Title VIII, as modified in 1988, covers individuals who think that they are negatively affected by an inequitable policy, practice, or treatment, even before they incur damages.

The law applies to about 80 percent of all real estate in the United States. One exception to the statute is a single-family house offered or rented without the usage of a broker and without discriminatory marketing, when the owner owns no greater than 3 such houses and offers only one home in a two-year duration. Neither does the statute use to a four-unit dwelling if the owner lives in one of the systems, the so-called Mrs.-Murphy's- rooming-house exception. Dwellings owned by personal clubs or spiritual organizations that rent to their own members on a noncommercial basis are likewise exempt.

Enforcement

Enforcement of the statute was left to the secretary of the Department of Real Estate and Urban Development (HUD). Complaints initially had actually to be submitted within 180 days of the offending act, but in 1988, this period was amended to one year. By the 2020s, HUD had approximated that countless circumstances of real estate discrimination occurred each year; while numerous went unreported, the National Fair Real estate Alliance continued to release the total number, usually several thousands, of protests each year. The US attorney general of the United States can bring a civil fit versus an ostentatious lawbreaker of the law.

According to the law, HUD automatically refers complaints to regional agencies that administer "considerably equivalent" reasonable real estate laws. HUD can act if the local agencies fail to do so, but at first was anticipated just to utilize conference, conciliation, and persuasion to produce voluntary compliance. The Fair Real Estate Amendments Act of 1988 authorized 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 used "testers" to show discrimination. That testers have standing to sue was established by the US Supreme Court in Havens v. Coleman (1982 ). Under the administrative law treatment, penalties are provided according to first offense and increase for additional offenses afterwards. Attorneys' costs and court costs can be recovered by the prevailing celebration.

Title IX of the law restricts intimidation or attempted injury of anyone submitting a real estate discrimination problem. If a complainant is really injured, the penalty can increase and/or include a certain number of years of jail time. If a plaintiff is killed, the charge can be life imprisonment.

Under the laws of some states, a complainant filing with a state agency must waive the right to pursue a remedy under federal law. In 1965, a couple sought to buy a home in a St. Louis suburban real estate development, just to be informed by the real estate agent that the home was not available because one of the partners was Black. Invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the couple took legal action against the realty developer, and the case went to the Supreme Court. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company (1968 ), the Court decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did allow a solution versus real estate discrimination by private celebrations.

Many experts have argued, nevertheless, that the result of the 1968 Fair Real Estate Act has been minimal. Without a bigger supply of budget-friendly real estate, lots of Black Americans, in specific, have nowhere to move to delight in integrated real estate. Federal aids 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 considerably considering that the 1980s.

Bibliography

" The Fair Real Estate Act. " Civil Liberty 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 Comes of Age. 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.