Facts
- Havens Realty Corp. owned an apartment complex near Richmond, Virginia, and an employee acted as its leasing agent.
- A nonprofit fair-housing organization, Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME), used two “testers” (one Black, one white) to investigate alleged racial steering.
- In tests conducted more than 180 days before suit, the Black tester was told no apartments were available while the white tester was told vacancies existed.
- Within 180 days of filing, Sylvia Coleman, a Black prospective renter, was allegedly falsely told no apartments were available.
- HOME alleged that the steering practices frustrated and perceptibly impaired its housing counseling and referral work, diverting resources to counteract discrimination.
- Respondents filed a class action seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, including § 804 and the civil enforcement provision with a 180-day filing period.
Issues
- Whether tester plaintiffs who lacked an intent to rent nonetheless had Article III standing and a cause of action under the Fair Housing Act when given allegedly race-based false information about availability.
- Whether HOME had organizational standing based on alleged frustration of its mission and diversion of resources from its programs.
- Whether claims involving conduct occurring more than 180 days before filing were time-barred, or whether an alleged pattern of racial steering constituted a continuing violation measured from the last occurrence.
- Whether post-filing agreements resolving some claims rendered the case moot.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot because live controversies remained notwithstanding post-filing resolutions affecting certain claims.
- The Court held that testers had standing: a person who is misrepresented to about housing availability on a prohibited basis suffers the type of injury the Fair Housing Act was enacted to prevent, even without intent to rent.
- The Court held HOME adequately alleged organizational standing by claiming a concrete injury to its activities and a consequent drain on resources, not merely an abstract interest in fair housing.
- The Court held the action was timely under a continuing-violation theory: when an “unlawful practice” is challenged, the limitations period runs from the last asserted occurrence of that practice; a within-period incident made the broader pattern actionable.
- The Court affirmed reversal of the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, including development of remaining standing questions for other individual plaintiffs.
Legal Principles
- Congress may create statutory rights whose invasion constitutes injury in fact for Article III purposes when the plaintiff alleges a concrete, personal denial of that right.
- Under the Fair Housing Act, a tester who receives discriminatory false information about housing availability suffers a cognizable injury and may sue, regardless of intent to rent.
- An organization has standing in its own right when it pleads a concrete and demonstrable injury to its activities, including perceptible impairment and diversion of resources; a mere setback to abstract social interests is insufficient.
- For Fair Housing Act claims alleging an ongoing discriminatory practice, the limitations period is measured from the last asserted occurrence of the practice, permitting earlier related acts to be considered as part of the same continuing violation.
Conclusion
The Court recognized standing for fair-housing testers and for an organization alleging diversion-of-resources injury from discriminatory steering, and held that an alleged continuing pattern of steering is timely if at least one occurrence falls within the Fair Housing Act’s 180-day filing period.