## Facts

- South-Suburban Housing Center (SSHC), a nonprofit fair-housing organization in Chicago’s south suburbs, bought and rehabilitated vacant homes in predominantly Black neighborhoods for resale.
- SSHC used an affirmative marketing plan that added targeted outreach to White buyers to counter “white flight” and resegregation.
- SSHC’s marketing did not reduce general marketing to Black or other minority buyers and did not seek to steer minority buyers away from the homes.
- The Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors (the Realtors) opposed the program as unlawful “racial steering.”
- The Realtors removed SSHC’s listings from the Board’s multiple listing service and initiated discipline against a participating broker.
- Several municipalities enacted ordinances regulating real-estate advertising and practices, including permit/fee requirements for “for sale” signs and limits on door-to-door real-estate solicitation.
- After a bench trial, the district court held SSHC’s program did not violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and issued rulings addressing FHA and First Amendment challenges to the ordinances; the parties appealed and cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether SSHC’s race-conscious, pro-integration outreach to White buyers constituted unlawful discrimination or “racial steering” under the FHA.
2. Whether the Realtors violated the FHA by excluding SSHC listings from the MLS and pursuing discipline against a broker associated with the marketing plan.
3. Whether municipal limits on real-estate solicitation and “for sale” sign regulations violated the FHA or the First Amendment’s protections for commercial speech.
4. Whether a municipal permit fee for “for sale” signs was unconstitutional absent proof the fee was reasonably related to administrative costs.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held SSHC’s affirmative marketing plan did not violate the FHA.
- The court rejected SSHC’s claim that the Realtors’ MLS exclusion and disciplinary actions violated the FHA.
- The court upheld municipal solicitation ordinances against FHA and First Amendment challenges.
- The court upheld most municipal “for sale” sign regulations.
- The court invalidated Country Club Hills’ permit fee for “for sale” signs because the municipality did not justify the fee as tied to administrative costs.
- The court largely affirmed the district court, reversed in part as to the Country Club Hills fee, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Race-conscious marketing intended to increase integrated housing opportunities may be consistent with the FHA when it does not deny, limit, or discourage housing opportunities for protected classes and does not steer minorities away from housing.
- “Racial steering” under the FHA generally involves conduct that channels or deters buyers based on race; adding targeted outreach to a group, without exclusionary effects, is not necessarily steering.
- FHA liability for intermediary actors requires proof that challenged conduct constitutes discrimination under the Act; actions taken from perceived compliance concerns, without discriminatory motive or effect, may not establish a violation.
- Municipal regulation of real-estate solicitation and signage is evaluated under commercial-speech principles; restrictions may be upheld when they serve substantial interests (such as residential privacy and aesthetics) and are not more extensive than necessary.
- Permit fees affecting speech must be justified by a reasonable relationship to the administrative costs of the permitting scheme; unsupported fees function as impermissible burdens on speech.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit approved SSHC’s race-conscious outreach designed to attract White buyers to homes in predominantly Black neighborhoods because it did not restrict minority access and furthered integration goals consistent with the FHA; it also sustained most municipal solicitation and sign controls under the FHA and the First Amendment, while striking an unjustified “for sale” sign permit fee.


S.-Suburban Hous. Ctr. v. Greater S. Suburban Bd. of Realtors, 935 F.2d 868 (7th Cir. 1991)