## Facts

- Cabrini-Green was a Chicago public-housing development that provided subsidized rental units to low-income families.
- Ninety-four percent of the heads of household at Cabrini-Green were African-American.
- The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) managed Cabrini-Green.
- CHA drafted a redevelopment plan for Cabrini-Green.
- The plan called for demolition of several buildings, which would displace about 675 families.
- The plan stated that only about 300–325 replacement units would be built.
- As a result, more than 300 Cabrini-Green families—most of them African-American—would not receive replacement public housing at Cabrini-Green.
- The Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council (LAC), a tenant organization representing Cabrini-Green residents, sued CHA (and related officials) challenging the redevelopment plan.
- LAC asserted multiple federal claims, including that the plan was racially discriminatory in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and also relied on other federal housing/relocation statutes and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- CHA moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether LAC adequately alleged an injury and standing to challenge CHA’s redevelopment plan on behalf of Cabrini-Green residents.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated FHA and Title VI claims based on allegations that the redevelopment plan would disproportionately displace African-American tenants and reduce replacement housing.
3. Whether the complaint stated viable, privately enforceable claims (including through § 1983) under the additional federal housing and relocation statutes invoked, or whether those theories failed as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court ruled on CHA’s motion to dismiss by allowing the case to proceed on the core discrimination theories while trimming other theories.
- The court held that, at the pleading stage, LAC’s allegations about displacement and the shortfall in replacement units at a development that was overwhelmingly African-American were sufficient to state FHA and Title VI claims challenging the plan’s alleged discriminatory effects.
- The court dismissed (or narrowed) certain additional statutory counts to the extent the cited provisions did not supply a private right of action or did not create rights enforceable through § 1983.
- The ruling addressed only whether the complaint stated claims; it did not resolve whether CHA’s redevelopment plan ultimately violated federal law.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether the complaint states a legally recognized claim for relief.
- A tenant representative organization may sue when it plausibly alleges that the challenged action will cause concrete harm to the residents it represents, such as displacement and reduced housing opportunities.
- Allegations that a redevelopment plan will displace large numbers of residents and provide substantially fewer replacement units—where the affected population is predominantly a racial minority—can be enough to plead discriminatory effects under the FHA at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- Title VI prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal funds; at the pleading stage, allegations of racially disparate effects tied to a challenged housing plan may be sufficient to proceed (with the precise standard and proof reserved for later stages).
- Not every federal housing or relocation statute creates a private right to sue; claims may be dismissed when Congress did not create enforceable individual rights, including when plaintiffs attempt to proceed through § 1983.

## Conclusion

In *Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chicago Housing Authority*, the district court largely permitted a tenant council’s challenge to move forward where the complaint alleged that CHA’s Cabrini-Green redevelopment plan would demolish buildings, displace about 675 families, and replace only 300–325 units, thereby disproportionately harming African-American residents in violation of the FHA and Title VI; however, the court dismissed or limited other statutory theories that did not provide privately enforceable rights.


Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chicago Housing Authority, 1997 WL 31002 (1997)