## Facts

- St. Louis County’s master planning designated acreage within what became Black Jack, Missouri, for multiple-family housing, and some apartments already existed in the area.
- A nonprofit interracial coalition proposed Park View Heights, a low- to moderate-income integrated townhouse development intended to expand housing options for Black families facing segregated and overcrowded housing conditions in the region.
- After the proposal emerged, local residents organized to incorporate the area as the City of Black Jack.
- Following incorporation, the City adopted Zoning Ordinance No. 12, which prohibited construction of any new multiple-family dwellings.
- The ordinance prevented Park View Heights and similar integrated multifamily developments from being built.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal zoning ordinance banning new multiple-family dwellings violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and § 3617, when it foreseeably blocks integrated, low- to moderate-income housing and thereby denies housing opportunities because of race.
2. Whether proof of discriminatory effect (disparate impact) is sufficient to establish a prima facie Fair Housing Act violation without proof of discriminatory intent, and what justification a municipality must provide once disparate impact is shown.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment for the City and held Ordinance No. 12 violated the Fair Housing Act.
- The court ruled the ordinance had a discriminatory effect by precluding construction of integrated, low- to moderate-income housing in a highly segregated metropolitan area.
- The court held discriminatory motive was not required to establish a prima facie violation where the challenged action’s foreseeable result is discriminatory.
- After the United States established disparate impact, the burden shifted to the City to show the ordinance was necessary to achieve a substantial governmental interest and that less discriminatory alternatives were unavailable.
- The City’s asserted interests (including traffic, schools, public services, and preserving single-family character) were found unsupported or insufficient in light of the ordinance’s exclusionary effect.
- The case was remanded for relief consistent with the appellate ruling.

## Legal Principles

- The Fair Housing Act reaches municipal zoning actions that, by their necessary and foreseeable consequences, significantly impair equal housing opportunity on the basis of race.
- A plaintiff may establish a prima facie Fair Housing Act violation by showing discriminatory effect; proof of discriminatory intent is not required.
- Once discriminatory effect is shown, the municipality must justify the policy as necessary to achieve a substantial (or compelling) governmental interest and must show the objective cannot be met by a less discriminatory alternative.
- Traditional deference given to zoning under rational-basis review does not displace the Fair Housing Act’s separate inquiry into exclusionary effects on protected groups.
- Conduct that blocks integrated housing opportunities can constitute denial of housing under § 3604(a) and interference with fair housing rights under § 3617 when it effectively prevents equal housing opportunity in practice.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that Black Jack’s categorical ban on new multifamily housing unlawfully perpetuated segregation by blocking an integrated, low- to moderate-income development, and that disparate impact established Fair Housing Act liability absent proof of discriminatory intent where the City could not provide an adequate justification.


United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir. 1974)